Preamble

The House met al half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

General Practitioners

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the number of support staff for general practitioners has changed since 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The number of staff in England covered by the practice staff scheme has risen from 20,100 in 1979 to 44,800 at October 1990. That represents an increase of 123 per cent.

Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable information, which belies the suggestion by Opposition Members that we are cutting services in the national health service. How many practice nurses are there in the Nottingham health authority area and how do they help patients?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that it gives the lie to the suggestion that we are cutting the service. It also emphasises the extent to which we are investing in primary health care. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that we now employ 164 practice nurses in Nottinghamshire and that the family health services authority that covers Ribble Valley employs 84 practice nurses— an increase of 290 per cent. since 1985.

Trade Unions

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has discussed policy matters relating to the NHS with trade unions over the last 12 months.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): Yes, Sir. I met the TUC health services committee earlier today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State confirm that pay rates for ancillary staff in the NHS are as much as £20 a week less than those paid by local

authorities for very similar work? How can that be justified? Instead of squandering taxpayers' money supporting private health schemes, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the offer that he will be making on 22 March to the trade unions, direct a little of that money towards recompensing health service workers for their low pay?

Mr. Waldegrave: I should not wish to draw any conclusions about the employment practices of local authorities or the health service from that comparison, but I have made it clear that, within whatever settlement can be afforded this year, we hope to steer some resources towards the lowest paid.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of the NHS trade unions in not being able to negotiate sensible rates of pay for the lowest earners among their members is a sign that big national pay bargaining systems do not work in the best interests of employees and that the sooner they find more efficient trade unionists to represent them and look to local pay bargaining, the better it will be for everybody?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with the latter part of the question. Indeed, the figures show that national pay bargains do not produce the best results for employees and that if we could move towards local deals and more flexibility, everyone would benefit, especially the low paid.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in a bipartisan spirit whether, during his discussions on policy this morning with the trade unions, there was an opportunity for them to congratulate him on today's reports that he is resisting an extension of private medical insurance? Will he confirm that the current relief scheme for the elderly has produced a tax hand-out for those who are existing clients, but no increase in the number of pensioners who can afford it, even in the Ribble Valley? Will he now admit that the scheme is wholly irrelevant to the health needs of the elderly, so that we may both go into the next election with a commitment to scrap it?

Mr. Waldegrave: That matter did not come up in the interesting talks that I had this morning, but it is true that a large number of trade unions and unionists have sought private health care without needing any incentive to do so.

Cervical Screening

Mr. Conway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners are receiving target payments for cervical screening.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): On 1 April 1990, 88 per cent. of general practitioners qualified for a target payment for cervical screening. I congratulate all those involved on this excellent achievement.

Mr. Conway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Obviously, the figures are encouraging. My hon. Friend will be aware that, especially in rural areas, such a degree of screening can be difficult. What are the percentage figures for the Shropshire family health service authority and what can we do to encourage it?

Mrs. Bottomley: In the Shropshire family health service authority 99 per cent. of GPs qualified for a target


payment. That was a substantial achievement. Shropshire is one of 24 family health service authorities that managed to achieve that level.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the reasonably high overall percentage, is it true that in inner cities there is still a low take-up? What is being done to encourage a higher take-up?

Mrs. Bottomley: Some notable inner cities have made remarkable strides. For example, all Barnsley's GPs are claiming target payments for cervical cytology and child immunisation. In recognition of the needs of inner cities, for the first time the Government have made deprivation payments to inner-city GPs. We have made it clear that we want health opportunities for those in the less-advantaged areas to be as good as those in the more-advantaged areas.

Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend recall the fuss made by some general practitioners and their professional bodies when the contract was proposed? Does she agree that the figures that she has given to the House suggest that their fears and objections were illfounded? Can she tell us the extent to which target figures have been met in respect of child immunisation and vaccination?

Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse my hon. Friend's point. I refer him to remarks by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said that the figures were quite heroic. Many GPs thought that they would not be able to achieve them. We have seen remarkable progress in increased immunisation, vaccination and cervical cytology. At last the NHS is a health service rather than a disease service and is preventing illness.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister agree that as well as getting more women to come forward for screening, it is important for the results to be conveyed to them promptly? One in three health authorities reports that it is unable to meet the target of getting the results back to the GP within a month. How does the Minister propose to ensure that health authorities can meet that target? Does she agree that it is unfair that women who are screened privately can get their results within a week, whereas women who are screened in the national health service sometimes have to wait for three months?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is right that any backlog in waiting for the result of the test is unsatisfactory. We make it clear that we want the result within a month and two out of three authorities are achieving that target. The average for authorities that are not making the results known within a month is seven weeks and we want them to do better. The hon. Lady is always the first to condemn her own health authority. She will be pleased to know that the waiting time there is three weeks.

Regional Pay Bargaining

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce regional pay bargaining to the NHS.

Mr. Dorrell: The Government's objective over recent years has been progressively to introduce greater flexibility in order to allow local managers to relate pay rates to local conditions and to reward individual performance. That process is continuing.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that local pay bargaining is all about incentives and about giving managers the total resources to look after their workers? Local managers know exactly what local people want. Our policy is in stark contrast to that of the Labour party, which talks about care, talks about the national health service, talks about patients, talks about doctors and talks about nurses, but at the end of the day its policy is about union power and a return to beer and sandwiches at No. 10.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of pay as a key question facing national health service managers. Pay represents over 70 per cent. of NHS expenditure. It is absurd to ask a manager to use the resources within his control as effectively as possible while at the same time saying that he has no discretion over the way in which 70 per cent. of those resources are used.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister has given a commitment that in areas like the highlands, which are rural and spread out, the health service will be as good as in any urban area. How does he square that with saying that we will have local pay bargaining in communities where jobs are hard to find? Does not it mean that if wages in the health service are lower in those areas, it will not attract nurses and other ancillary workers?

Mr. Dorrell: What it means is that we are committed to delivering a high-quality health care service throughout the country, investing in managers the powers necessary to allow them to deliver that in the locality for which they are responsible.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend for the steps that he has taken to break up national pay bargaining, which is so beloved of the trade unions which Opposition Members serve. I suggest to him that the current system of national pay bargaining, with its attempted alleviation through London allowance and the like, is very unfair to boroughs on the fringes of such allowance areas such as Gravesham. With that increased flexibility, will my hon. Friend ensure that the funding goes with it to particular areas to reflect local employment costs?

Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, funding will reflect the weighted capitation formula through the regional health authorities. We are talking about discretion in the hands of managers over the way in which those resources are used. We envisage an evolutionary process which involves not the overnight demolition of traditional structures but the progressive introduction of greater flexibility, to ensure that the service meets the aspirations that we all have for it.

Drugs

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any representations regarding the prescribing of high-cost drugs; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir. We have received some representations. All doctors are free to prescribe high-cost drugs. The extent to which hospital doctors do so is


governed by how they choose to spend their share of the increasing resources being made available to the NHS, in the light of local health care priorities.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that even now there are problems with the prescribing of certain drugs to children, especially child growth hormones? Is he further aware that a conference was held on Monday to try to determine the future prospects for prescribing such drugs? Children in my area are still being denied drugs which are necessary to them because of cuts in funding in the run-up to 1 April. Will he urgently consider organising a new basis for the prescription of such drugs?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the continuing pressures and I believe that there will always be such pressure in the national health service, whatever the level of funding. If by special measures the hon. Member means that all decisions should be centralised, as some of my hon. Friends have urged on me, I think that that would be wrong. It would mean that a group of doctors in the Department of Health would take away local clinical decisions and that would be wrong. This has to be a matter in which those in hospitals use their clinical judgment to make the best decision for the patient against the other competing claims which will always be made of them.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pharmacists believe that there is still much over-prescribing of drugs by GPs and that positively millions of pounds worth of unused drugs lie on the shelves of British bathroom cupboards? Will he continue to fight waste in all departments of the NHS, especially this one?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Against the predictions made, the indicative drug prescribing scheme is already saving unnecessary prescribing. The newspapers this week carried a story which I must draw to the attention of hon. Members, as it is not always the latest and most expensive drugs which turn out to be the best for patients. The story concerned a rival series of heart drugs, but, as the companies involved are suing each other, I had better be careful about what I say. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must be careful to root out waste. My bathroom cupboard certainly has too many unused drugs in it.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the most expensive drugs are those of the steroid family, which are used as preventive medicine in the treatment of asthma? He will know that 2,000 young people die of asthma each year and it has been estimated that 80 per cent. of those deaths could have been avoided, had the illness been properly diagnosed and the disease treated with the right steroid drugs. Will he ensure that proper diagnosis is made and that treatment is given not on the basis of cost but on the basis of the need to save lives, especially young lives?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course, that is the criterion on which decisions are made. I agree that it is disturbing that asthma is one of the diseases that are currently on the increase, for reasons that are not fully understood. I also agree that early diagnosis is important: if that will help —along with the primary health care measures that we are introducing—steps can be taken that are much cheaper and much more effective than later treatment.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of PACT— prescription analysis and costs— has provided the major savings in GP prescribing, rather than the indicative drug budget scheme? In view of those savings, is not it time to consider prescribing specialist hospital products to meet the commitment made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor that patients will have every drug that they need and that it will not be left to consultants to make clinical judgments based on the resources available to their regional or district health authorities?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that PACT has played a large part in the current developments, although in due course he will find the indicative drug budget scheme helpful, too. I caution him that there will always be difficult clinical decisions for doctors and clinicians to make. Drugs are not of themselves in a different category from other expensive forms of treatment — for example, those that involve high capital-cost equipment.

Mr. Wareing: Have any of the representations made to the Secretary of State concerned benzodiazepines? They still seem to present a considerable problem, despite the number of circulars that have been sent out. Is not it high time that legislation was introduced to control the prescribing and re-prescribing of dangerous drugs which are addictive and are causing more havoc than cure in the health service?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we strongly sympathise with his anxiety. I am not sure that legislation is the best way forward; it would be difficult to frame. This is the sort of problem which the indicative drug prescribing scheme is aimed to deal with and we continue to press for it to be properly addressed.

Natural Medicines

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his medicines review committee will report on the natural medicines licence fee system; and what increase in fees he proposes in the meantime.

Mr. Dorrell: The Medicines Control Agency is undertaking a full review of the licensing fee structure and will be issuing a consultation document shortly. We are not proposing an interim increase in fees.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the manufacturers of natural medicines tend to be small businesses with a large number of medicines to license? High fees, and the high costs involved in obtaining licences, could drive the smaller manufacturers out of business, cutting consumer choice and possibly pushing up the cost of natural medicines. I am sure that that is not my hon. Friend's intention, but can he give the House a guarantee that the new system will not have that undesirable result?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right that it is no part of our intention to drive the small companies providing such remedies out of business. As he will know, the points that he made have been put during the review to which I referred and they will, of course, be taken into account when the report is published.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he has just given and acknowledge that an increasing number of people choose to use natural alternative medicines? It would do the health service and all who make that choice no service at all to ladle unwarranted extra costs on to those who provide the alternative medicines.

Mr. Dorrell: It is precisely because I accept the force of the consumer choice argument that the hon. Gentleman advances— slightly improbably— that I told my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that we were receptive to what he was saying.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that some manufacturers of herbal and homeopathic products, such as Weleda, make no fewer than 2,000 such products, and that to impose on them a flat-rate licence system, rather than one based on turnover, would place burdens on them that could drive some products from the market?

Mr. Dorrell: We recognise the force of that argument and it is being taken into account in the review, which will shortly lead to a report.

Health Authorities

Mr. Cunliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the number of health authorities currently in deficit.

Mr. Waldegrave: The latest figures that I have show 59 district health authorities spending at a higher rate than their regular income. Almost all districts will have corrected this by the end of the year.

Mr. Cunliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are conflicting reports about the figures that he cited? In a recent survey of community health councils, 92 per cent. agreed that nine out of every 10 district health authorities were seriously underfunded and had been forced to make cuts in essential services. They agreed that that mammoth task was being imposed on them as a result of unrealistic budgets.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the position in the north-west of England— in particular, in the Greater Manchester area, where, at the Royal Manchester children's hospital, implant ear operations for tinnitus sufferers have had to be suspended? Budgetary controls have forced that hospital not to perform the £46,000 ear operation: the district health authority has had to cut its income.
Will the Secretary of State take note of that and stop asking our health authorities to run hospital services like a chain of supermarkets——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Mr. Cunliffe: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Waldegrave: I missed the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but his general drift does not entirely coincide with the figures from the Wigan district health authority area which show that waiting lists are falling and that the number of long waits has fallen markedly. The hon. Gentleman was referring to the telephone poll of some community health councils arranged by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I do not deny that

some district health authorities are under pressure to balance their budgets, but if Opposition Members think that bad management and inefficient financial management are in the interests of patients, they are wrong.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's rational reply, but does he accept that there is a problem and that many more health authorities would be in deficit had they not closed beds and wards at a time when there are people who need to go into hospital for treatment and when hospital theatres and many excellent consultants are available for much-needed operations?

Mr. Waldegrave: Where a budget is overrun, action has to be taken to correct the deficit and sometimes the action is not the most efficient in terms of using that hospital's resources. It would be wholly unfair to the great majority of districts throughout the country which are balancing their books properly if those which overran were allowed to pre-empt resources from them.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does not the Secretary of State realise that it is not deficits that damage patient care, but the cuts that are made to avoid deficits? If he is in any doubt about that, will he accept my invitation to visit the accident department at King's College hospital where, last night, 11 patients spent the whole night on trolleys and where, this afternoon, there are 18 emergency cases on trolleys because more than 100 beds were shut at that hospital to avoid deficit? Is balancing the books really worth that indignity and that delay in patient care?

Mr. Waldegrave: Encouraging bad management is strongly against the interests of patients. There is a well-understood problem at the accident and emergency department at King's, but the latest figures show that about half the surgery being done at that hospital is non-emergency surgery—elective surgery. That shows that the hospital is not under as much pressure as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received to extend the exemption from NHS prescription charges on medical grounds; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dorrell: The Department has received regular correspondence on exemption from prescription charges since 1968 when prescription charges were reintroduced by the Wilson Government.

Mr. Sumberg: Is not it about time that we considered the very strict criteria that apply to those exemptions? In particular, will my hon. Friend consider exempting treatment for Parkinson's disease? Parkinson's disease is a chronic condition, the patients always deteriorate and a very high drug bill is required to treat it. It is about time that we reconsidered exemptions for Parkinson's disease and for one or two other diseases.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in pressing the case for Parkinson's disease victims. However, the case that he must answer is that to take the course that he espouses would mean channelling resources to people who are, by definition, not those on the lowest incomes. At the moment, any Parkinson's disease sufferer on a low income receives free prescriptions. When discussing


prescription charges, we should remember that individual prescription charges are now paid on only one item in every five that are dispensed.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that low-income families are suffering real financial hardship because when they take their prescriptions to the chemists those prescriptions cost more than £3 each while at one time under a Labour Government the cost was 20p?

Mr. Dorrell: Low-income families are entitled to exemption. In 1979 under Labour, two items out of every five rather than one in five carried a prescription charge. In 1968 the figure was three in five. The number of prescriptions carrying charges has been falling sharply since Labour left office.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important facilities for people with constant demands on drugs is the ability to' buy an annual prescription under which the maximum charge for anyone in any one year, however serious the problem,, is about £40?

Mr: Dorrell: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The season ticket system is designed to address the problem of those people who have a regular need for drugs and for whom an individual prescription charge would represent a significant burden. No one need pay more than the total cost of the season ticket for an individual drug need.

Care in the Community

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what fresh initiatives he plans to take to ensure that elderly and disabled people receive a high standard of care in the community.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Local authorities will be introducing the new inspection and complaints arrangements as the first part of the Government's community care policies in April.

Mr. Michael: Is that really the best that. the Minister can do? Does she not realise that having promised care in the community, the Government have failed to ring-fence it, delayed its implementation for three years and now appear to be about to abandon it altogether? Does she not also realise that we want care in the community now for those people— the number of whom is increasing—who are already in the community? It is about time that the Minister made way and allowed the Secretary of State to promise us real care in the community for the people who need it now.

Mrs. Bottomley: Frankly; the soap box will get nowhere in terms of producing effective community care. The policy is on course with implementation. In April we are moving ahead with complaints, with inspection, with special help for drug and alcohol abusers, with extra care for the mentally ill and a very substantial increase in money for training. Local authorities and health authorities are working with voluntary organisations and the private sector to make a real success of this popular and important policy which now needs to be implemented with care and detail with the extra resources that we have made available.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are real fears in Derbyshire about the funding for care in the community being switched from the central Government to Derbyshire county council, which has already declared its opposition to placing any money with the private sector, particularly in relation to private residential homes? Does she also accept that it might not be a good idea to make that switch when we are seriously considering abolishing the county councils altogether? Would it not be better, if the money is to be shifted from central Government, to give it to the health authorities which we know and trust to do a good job?

Mrs. Bottomley: Derbyshire county council could well take to heart the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaking at the local government conference on Saturday. He said that in local government we need
less paper and more action. Less empire-building and more innovation; less government and more service.
A local authority like Derbyshire, which believes that there is great virtue in providing a home help for one in three people aged over 75 and not charging any of them for that, must think again. We are committed to the implementation of care in the community. It is important to achieve value for money and to consult users and carers. It is good policy which makes sense and it will bring an end to the warehousing of those with disadvantages and it will treat them with dignity and privacy in their own homes. We shall certainly ensure that all local authorities understand the realities of the policy and exercise the disciplines that are necessary in taking that care forward.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister recall that when the Government decided not to implement in full the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, the reason given was that they were pressing ahead with care in the community legislation? Now that that has been delayed for up to another two years before any benefit comes through, surely the Government should implement now—and in full—the 1986 Act?

Mrs. Bottomley: It would be a travesty for the hon. Gentleman to think that no action has been taken on care in the community for two years. A great deal of work has been carried out by local authorities and health authorities to improve their assessment procedures, to ensure that they bring forward their community care plans— and, especially, in keeping with the spirit of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred— to ensure that the users and carers are given the consideration that they require. Part VII of the Act deals with the policy being introduced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the mental illness care programme for proper procedures for those discharged from hospital.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most disadvantaged in society— the elderly, the disabled and the sick—suffer most from waste and inefficiency? Does she also agree that high standards in community care require good management, not the practices of loony left Labour councils?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that he is well aware that in his speech on Saturday, the Prime Minister said that the Opposition often think that the answer to every problem is to appoint an officer, whereas we believe that often the answer is to dis-appoint an officer.
We want to achieve value for money, to introduce good community care policies of the type toward which many health and local authorities are already making excellent progress. I pay a warm tribute to all of them and to the way in which they have collaborated with our draft guidance and have taken part in consultations to ensure that they have the practical tools to undertake their new responsibilities.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that if the policy was as good as she claims it is, it would have received overwhelming support from both sides of the House if it had not been abandoned but had been implemented? Does not she also accept that there is now abundant independent evidence that the cost of delaying the implementation of care in the community far outweighs the benefits in both financial and human terms and puts a continuing strain on the carers and the cared for? The Secretary of State himself expressed that view to the Select Committee on Health only a few days ago. All parties have wanted to end the uncertainty surrounding the policy since the Audit Commission's report of December 1986. We shall expect full support from both sides of the House when we announce implementation in April 1992 after the summer election.

Mrs. Bottomley: I very much hope that no local authority or health authority is under the misapprehension peddled by the hon. Gentleman. A great deal of work is already under way. Implementation begins on 1 April this year. With that in mind, we have increased the training available to local authorities by 20 per cent. this year to enable them to spend £35 million on training. We have increased the standard spending assessment for local authorities by 23·5 per cent., which is the largest increase in social service spending for 15 years.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the great inhibitions to giving good community care to the elderly and the disabled is the accommodation in which they frequently have to live? Will she speak to her hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to add her weight and that of her Department to the efforts of those who are trying to get builders to build new houses with level access and many other features which are beneficial to the elderly and the disabled?

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate, as ever, my hon. Friend's constructive remarks. We are now at the stage in the development of care in the community at which practical and innovative schemes must be arranged, often between departments of local government and between local government and health authorities, with the voluntary and private sectors. My hon. Friend will be aware that in Committee, our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing and Planning, constantly referred to the need to collaborate with housing authorities. He joined me only the other day for a discussion about the way to carry forward collaboration between social services departments, health authorities and housing departments. We have met a number of local authorities to talk precisely through the practical ways in which they can ensure that schemes such as that to which my hon. Friend refers can make progress.

Newham District General Hospital

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit Newham in order to discuss the delay in constructing phase three of the Newham district general hospital.

Mr. Dorrell: I have no immediate plans to visit Newham.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister recall that last October, a deputation from Newham district health authority came to see him and that he said that he would write? Does he also recall that, after a reminder last month, he wrote a letter of one and a half pages which did not even mention Newham hospital? Does he agree that funding urgently required medical facilities by the assumed value of land—if it is not sold—is not sensible? In view of the fact that there was a £ 12 billion budget surplus last year, is not such an approach at worst morally indefensible and at best politically inept?

Mr. Dorrell: I well understand the disappointment felt by the hon. Gentleman's constituents as a result of the cancellation of phase three of Newham hospital. The purpose of my letter to him was to try to discourage him from falling into a slough of despond and to remind him that all is not lost with the national health service in his district. The number of patients waiting for over a year, for example, has decreased by 10 per cent. over the last 12 months for which figures are available. The number of day cases has increased by 8 per cent. and the number of completed hospital stays has increased by 6 per cent. We have announced the approval of an initial practice allowance for two general practices in his area and we have encouraged the health authorities to work with the private sector and with the London Docklands development corporation to provide primary health care facilities in his constituency. All is not lost.

GP Target Payments

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners are receiving the higher target payments for cervical screening in the south-west region.

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners are receiving the higher target payments for childhood immunisation and vaccination in the south-west region.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As at 1 April 1990, 79 per cent. of general practitioners in the south western region qualified for higher target payments for cervical screening, and for childhood immunisation and vaccination. I congratulate all those involved on this excellent achievement.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that although cost-benefit analysis shows that not all preventive medicine is worth the resources spent on it, cervical screening is an area in which money is well spent? That shows clearly one of the benefits to patients of the new general practitioner contract.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is exactly right. About 2,000 deaths a year occur as a result of cervical cancer. It is estimated that 80 per cent. of those


could be saved by regular cervical cancer screening. It is a practical example of the success of the general practitioner contract, which is providing not only more services to women, such as well-woman clinics and health promotion clinics, and more services for all the family, such as child surveillance and minor surgery, but improved availability of and accessibility to general practitioners.

Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend accept that she has given another clear example of the steps that the Government are taking towards improving the health of young children?

Mrs. Bottomley: I do, indeed, on a number of fronts. Children are now saved from avoidable diseases from which there was no redress in days gone by. The number of mothers dying in childbirth has halved and the number of children surviving at birth has never been higher. I can inform my hon. Friend that the safest place to be born now is Huntingdon, where there is a record figure of 5·8 per 1,000 perinatal mortality.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Secretary of Stale for Health what steps he is taking to bring about a reduction in hospital waiting lists.

Mr. Waldegrave: The NHS management executive is agreeing tough targets for the reduction of long waits with all 14 regional health authorities. We are also continuing the special waiting list fund in 1991–92 with an extra £35 million to help health authorities reduce the number of patients who wait excessively.

Mr. Bidwell: What kind of national health service are the Government running when patients waiting for surgical treatment, such as hip replacements, are told that they may have to wait for years in some parts of the country but that if they come to London, they can get the job done in a matter of weeks if they are prepared to pay for it? That is forcing poor people to have a whip round among their families to afford the necessary treatment. We are returning to the days before the existence of the national health service, which some 'of us can still remember setting out to change.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject, as the waiting lists in his health authority have been tumbling. The total waiting lists in Ealing health authority have fallen by 43 per cent. according to the most recent figures available, and Ealing has almost entirely abolished, by an 86 per cent. drop, its long-term waiting lists. That is one example among many of the progress that is being made and the care that we are taking not to slip back to the days when the Labour party was running the health service.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday, 5 March.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Moscow having bilateral discussions with President Gorbachev.

Mr. Michie: Will the Lord President admit that, if the Ribble Valley borough council had been given the £ 1,192 per poll tax payer that was received in Wandsworth— [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Lambeth? Start again."] I shall start again. Will the Lord President admit that, if Ribble Valley borough council had been given the same £ 1,192 per poll tax payer, Ribble Valley constituents would have saved £225 per head?

Mr. MacGregor: Ribble Valley is a district council so cannot be compared with the borough that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Ribble Valley received much less than the adjoining Preston borough council and its community charge is 70p per week compared with £1·40 in Preston. Moreover, Ribble Valley community charge payers will benefit in many other ways. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to compare Ribble Valley's community charge with the minimum community charge in London, I must point out that the London borough of Wandsworth has an external support grant per adult of £1,192, compared with Lambeth's £1,557. He will know that there is a phenomenal difference in the community charge between boroughs.

Sir John Stokes: In view of the large and growing number of hoax bomb calls, does my right hon. Friend think that the present maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment is sufficient for such a serious arid dangerous offence?

Mr. MacGregor: I believe that the matter is being looked at not only by the Government but British Telecom. I agree about the importance of dealing with hoax phone calls.

Mr. Hattersley: Did yesterday's statement on the poll tax in Clitheroe by the Secretary of State for Health represent Government policy?

Mr. MacGregor: The position on the community charge is clear. The right hon. Gentleman mentions Clitheroe and I think that I know what he has in mind. He will know that the community charge reduction scheme, which we introduced recently, will benefit eight out of 10 households in Ribble Valley next year and that, of those, the average reduction will be about £200. That is a clear position on the community charge, from which many people in Ribble Valley will benefit.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Lord President has blocked his colleague's statement from his mind. Let me remind him what the Secretary of State for Health said, succinctly and precisely, about the poll tax. He said that the Government's policy was "No regrets, no apology." Does the Lord President endorse that view?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not like my answer on the community charge reduction scheme, which will clearly benefit a great number of people in Ribble Valley. He will know that we are reviewing all aspects of the community charge scheme — that has been made clear many times.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Lord President has twice singularly refused to answer my question about what his


colleague said, may I suggest that what his colleague really meant was, "No apologies, no regrets about the poll tax and no idea what to do next"?

Mr. MacGregor: Might I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not pay so much attention to everything in the newspapers, because my right hon. Friend said no such thing.

Mr. Favell: Now that it looks as though the community charge, in its present form, is going to go, will the Cabinet consider abolishing the right of town halls to raise money and give them 100 per cent., based on a formula of what they need to spend? That would save more than £1·5 billion in collection costs and do away with transitional relief and community charge relief.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his view known, and will know that the Cabinet is looking at all options in relation to the community charge review.

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that last year no fewer than 1,390 operations were cancelled in the Ribble Valley health authority district? Does he also know that, in Ayrshire senior medical staff were balloted twice about opting out of health board controls and voted overwhelmingly against doing so, but that that decision is still to be imposed on the people of that district? What way is that to run a health service?

Mr. MacGregor: I do know that in Ribble Valley the number of in-patients treated has gone up by 36 per cent., the waiting lists have come down by 65 per cent. over 12 months and £36 million worth of capital has been invested since 1979. That is a clear sign of the priority given to health in that district.

Mr. Squire: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the consistent attempts of Conservative Wandsworth and Westminster to reduce their community charge to the lowest possible level were described as a "silly battle" by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)? Does my right hon. Friend agree that many thousands, if not millions, of people in this country would welcome other councils joining that battle? The real silly battle is between Labour Lambeth and Haringey to see who will have the highest charge.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I am in London I have to live in the London borough of Haringey and have watched its record of mismanagement over many years. It simply cannot be claimed that Haringey receives a small amount of external support in terms of pounds per adult— the amount is high. As Secretary of State for Education and Science, I watched as Haringey spent much more money on central administration for education than any other local education authority in the country. But it is still not able to give the accounts for its education spending later than 1986. Such mismanagement has produced the high community charge in Haringey, Lambeth and other boroughs.

Mr. Trimble: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Trimble: I should like to refer the Leader of the House to the explosion that occurred this morning in the design engineering works of Shorts in Belfast. Does he agree that this was an attack upon jobs and fair employment? Will the Government support Shorts and other firms in efforts to screen out from lists of potential employees those who would actively assist terrorism in this way?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House deeply regrets the incidents -in Northern Ireland in the last few days, and would want to extend sympathy to all those who have been affected. The Government's stance on terrorism is well known. We are determined, as always, to use every effort to stamp it out.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the running of the final train on the Somerset and Dorset joint railway? After that event, in a fit of corporate vandalism, the track was rendered unusable. Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow I shall present for its First Reading the Railway Re-openings (Tribunal) Bill? The supporters of this Bill include Labour Front-Bench Members, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Scottish National party, as well as many other Members in all parts of the House. Will my right hon. Friend please do his best to ensure that his Cabinet colleagues recognise that ripping up a temporarily redundant railway track is an unacceptable act of national vandalism?

Mr. MacGregor: I was not aware of the anniversary to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, knowing his very great knowledge of these matters, I shall take his word for it. Until now, his Bill had not been drawn to my attention. I am grateful to him for letting me know about it, and I am certainly willing to look at it.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the present squalid Tory Government, in their first 10 years of office, handed out £26·2 billion to the wealthiest 1 per cent. of taxpayers? Does he know that that kind of money would give a cold weather payment and a free television licence to every pensioner, slash the national health service waiting list, get rid of cardboard city and stop the education cuts? Why do not the Government, instead of rabbiting on about the classless society, practise what they preach? Why do not they stop redistributing wealth to the rich and give some to the poor and needy?

Mr. MacGregor: I am also very well aware of the much more substantial reductions in income tax for the majority of households in this country. I am well aware, too, of the result of the pursuit of successful economic policies, including the 42 per cent. real-terms increase in expenditure on the health service and the big increases in


expenditure in so many other areas. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to return to the regime that we inherited in 1979, is he saying also that his Front-Bench colleagues support a top tax rate of 98p in the pound?

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local management of schools is proving to be immensely popular and that many head teachers, who previously had significant reservations about it, are now included among its supporters? Does he agree that the reason for its popularity is the greater flexibility and the improved decision-making powers that it gives to individual schools?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will know, I have always been a most enthusiastic supporter of the grant maintained schools. That being so, I strongly agree with what he has said. He has drawn attention to two of the virtues of grant maintained status. It is because of such virtues that grant maintained schools are becoming more and more popular and more and more likely to spread throughout the country. My hon. Friend's point about headmasters is very relevant. I should like to quote one headmaster, who, in the first instance, was opposed to his school becoming grant maintained. After a series of commendations he said, "I wouldn't miss what is happening here for anything. It is the most professionally fulfilling period of my entire experience as a head."

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Lord President aware that thousands of people have extreme difficulty in paying the poll tax for the current financial year and that within three to four weeks they will be receiving bills which will be even greater in many areas? Does he realise that for them a promise of legislation in two years' time to overcome the poll tax is not sufficient? They need an answer now—this April. Can he give an undertaking that the Government will bring in

radical provision for those people to help save those on low incomes, pensioners and disabled people from the full impact of the poll tax in the next financial year?

Mr. MacGregor: The answer is twofold. First, the community charge reduction scheme, in addition to the other reduction and benefit schemes, will benefit large numbers of those people. As the hon. Gentleman knows, over half of community charge payers will benefit from that scheme. That will be immediate from the start of April this year. The second answer is for them to vote out at the first available opportunity the high-spending authorities which have caused so much of the increase.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend remind Her Majesty's Opposition that because of the new initiatives on the community charge and on the back of the excellent service that the Leader of the other place has offered to Ribble Valley, come this Thursday the Conservative candidate will be returned triumphantly and the Liberal and Labour candidates will return to the oblivion from which they came?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that that will mean an excellent new Member for the House in succession to my noble Friend, Lord Waddington, who performed such sterling services for Ribble Valley over the years.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 March.

Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Williams: Does the Leader of the House know that Mr. Nigel Evans, the Conservative party candidate in the Ribble Valley by-election, said yesterday in a press conference that he favoured the principle of everyone making a contribution towards the community charge—that is, he favoured the retention of the poll tax? Was he expressing a personal view or has someone leaked to him the results of the Government's review: that the Government intend to keep the poll tax?

Mr. MacGregor: I find that large numbers of people throughout the country, as well as in the House, think that one of the important features of the community charge is that everyone makes some contribution to the local services from which all benefit.

Telecommunications Policy

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's telecommunications policy for the 1990s.
On 13 November I presented to Parliament a consultative document setting out the proposals of the Government and the Director General of Telecommunications for liberalising the United Kingdom telecommunications market. We wanted to see greater competition and to let private enterprise flourish. We wanted lower prices. We wanted people to have a wider choice of service and of who provides the service. In short, we wanted a better deal for the customer. I am now glad to tell the House that we have achieved all those aims.
Those who responded to the consultative document strongly supported the Government's goals. We have therefore decided to implement our key proposals, and because of the strong support we can now achieve even more than promised in the consultative document.
In order to promote competition, the Government have decided to bring the duopoly policy to an end. Until now, only British Telecom and Mercury have been licensed to carry telephony services over fixed links. In future, the Government will consider all licence applications on their merits; and we will grant licences unless there are specific reasons to the contrary.
We said that we wanted to see lower prices. We are now going to have lower prices. British Telecom has agreed to reduce its prices by 6¼ per cent. per annum in real terms. International calls will also be included within this new limit. British Telecom intends to start by cutting the price of international calls by 10 per cent. in cash terms as soon as possible.
A new scheme is to be put in place to help the 2 million or so residential customers who are low users of the telephone. Low users will pay only half the standard rental and they will get 30 free call units every quarter. This scheme will be of particular benefit to those such as the elderly and infirm who rely on the telephone as a lifeline.
Virtually everyone will now benefit from cheaper telephone calls. Since privatisation in 1984, call charges and rentals have come down by over 20 per cent. in real terms. My announcement today means they will have fallen by over a third when the price cap is renewed in mid-1993.
Business costs will also be reduced by these changes. All firms will benefit from the tighter price cap and lower prices for international calls. Those businesses that use the telephone most can expect to benefit from the volume discounts that BT will offer in the future. Although BT will be allowed to raise rental and connection charges for businesses slightly faster than previously, this will apply only to those firms with more than one line. Moreover, BT must use the extra rental income to reduce call charges even more rapidly.
We said that we wanted customers to have a wider choice both of service and of who provides the service. They will now have this wider choice. The cable television companies are well placed to provide telephone services to

the home to compete with BT's local network. They are proposing to invest over £3 billion in new networks during the next five years and to cover two thirds of the country.
To help the cable companies realise their full potential, we have decided to let them provide telephony services in their own right rather than as an agent of BT or Mercury. They will now be able to provide a complete package of entertainment and telephony services to the customer.
BT and Mercury have, of course, been allowed to apply for cable television franchises through associate companies. We do not think they should be able to bypass these arrangements since this would be unfair to the cable companies which had to compete for their franchises. We have therefore decided that telephone companies should not be granted a national broadcasting licence for at least 10 years. Their associate companies will, however, continue to be able to apply for individual franchises. In addition, BT will be able to apply directly to provide TV services in any or all unfranchised areas from April 1994. Mobile operators will be allowed to offer new services over their radio networks.
Our policies of encouraging competition have given Britain the world's most dynamic mobile communications market and the two largest cellular networks in the world. My announcement today will give our companies still further opportunities.
A further important means of providing customers with more choice is equal access. We want to make it as easy as possible for customers to choose the cheaper or better long distance phone service. They should not have to buy a special phone or use an identification code or dial extra numbers to access BT's competitors. We received strong support for that proposal. We have decided that equal access should be introduced as soon as possible. It will start to be introduced in the next year or two, and I expect it to be available to the majority of telephone users within the next five years.
The Government and the director general have also taken steps to make it easier for new companies to enter the market and to offer additional services to customers. The director general will streamline and strengthen the arrangements under which companies interconnect so that customers on different networks can communicate with each other. He will become directly responsible for allocating numbers to different operators. The director general will be able to introduce number portability so that people can move from one network to another without changing their telephone number.
The policies are set out in a White Paper, "Competition and Choice: Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s", copies of which are available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Over the past seven years we have shown that competition works, that privatisation works and that strong independent regulation works. The decisions I am announcing today will build on this. They will stimulate competition, extend choice, cut prices, help to bring down inflation and give us the most dynamic telecommunications market in the world. I commend these decisions to the House.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State confirm that crucial decisions designed to determine the future of the telecommunications industry for an entire generation are being made after only two short months of hurried consultation—[Interruption.]


— after only a few rushed weeks of study of the consultation? Will he now tell us which other country in western Europe would publish a statement entitled "Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s" without saying anything about research, development and investment in the new technology or about improved regulation and accountability for the consumer? Is he not making decisions about restructuring telecommunications for the long term without even concluding a long-term agreement on prices for the ordinary consumer beyond the middle of 1993?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the pricing formula will be the retail prices index minus 6·25 per cent. because the basket now includes international calls as well as domestic calls, and when that is taken into account domestic callers will be no better off? Will he confirm that, despite all he says, British Telecom can this year still raise the typical domestic phone bill by 6 per cent. on top of last year's 9 per cent., that rental and installation charges can be pushed up by 8 per cent. on top of last year's 11 per cent. and that the effect of the new formula is that, in return for a possible 80p a year reduction in international call charges, for the typical domestic household there is still the prospect of an £8 rise in its phone bill?
Is it not the case that, although telephone bills should be falling when BT is making £3 billion a year in profit, bills will still be rising in the coming year and installation and rental charges will be rising even faster than inflation?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that installation charges are £21 in France and £24 in Germany, but up to £129 in Britain, and that there is not one proposal in his review to bring them down? Does he agree that rental charges are £40 in France and £45 in Italy, but £68 in Britain, and not only is there not one proposal to bring them down, but the main long-term effect on ordinary customer's bills will be a sustained increase in the basic rental charge—in effect, a flat rate levy on 19 million households, even when telephone standing charges are already twice those of gas and almost twice those of electricity?
Can the Secretary of State now justify to the public the prospect of even higher rental charges in the coming years when BT made £2·8 billion profit last year and this year is making more than £10 million a day? Is it not an irony that the main long-term result of this policy, which is intended to increase competition, is the prospect of remorseless increases in the universal levy for almost every household?
Is it not a disgrace that the Secretary of State's document clearly concedes that his rental proposal—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen to what the document says—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: Is it not a disgrace that the document says that the rental proposals
may prevent some people from having a telephone, particularly those such as the elderly or disabled who need the telephone as a lifeline."?
Is it not the case that the proposals that the Secretary of State puts forward to remedy that mean that even the poorest and the most disadvantaged pensioner will still pay £34 a year standing charge and, in return, will be entitled to only one three-minute local call every 10 days? That is a shabby travesty of any proper scheme for pensioners and the disabled.
The Opposition support an extension of competition when it is in the public interest, but when cable companies can send telephone and television pictures on an integrated network while British Telecom is to be restricted, when foreign companies can enter the British market unconditionally and unilaterally, while British companies are still prevented from entering many foreign markets, when the universal service obligation applies to BT but not to anyone else, far from pursuing a consistent policy of extending competition in the public interest to the benefit of us all, the policy that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today is selective and inconsistent and will serve to benefit the interests of mainly foreign cable companies moving into Britain.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the difference between us is that, while he supports competition with reduced regulation, we believe that the real issue is that competition should be accompanied by proper regulation in the interests of the whole public? Will the Secretary of State now discharge his duties, first, to establish clear performance targets for telephone companies; secondly, to improve investment in research and development; and, thirdly, to increase telephone connections so that by the year 2000 Britain can at least reach the levels achieved by comparable societies? By so doing, will he ensure that telecommunications benefit not just a few competing companies but the country as a whole?

Mr. Lilley: I can reassure the House that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every point. Far from holding only two months' consultation, we held four months' consultation, preceded by seven years' notice. Some 200 companies were able to submit proposals, which we considered, although I notice that the Labour party did not do so.
The hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing in the way of improved regulations for consumers. To describe a tighter price cap which will mean a reduction of 6·25 per cent. in real prices every year as no improvement for consumers shows an extraordinarily short-sighted view, particularly in a party which, when it had a nationalised telecommunications industry, had no regulator at all and allowed the industry to regulate itself.
The hon. Gentleman said that the cap ended in 1993. Of course, it will be revised in 1993. I remind him that on the last occasion it was increased so that the reduction in real prices increased from 3 per cent. to 4·5 per cent. It is now 6·25 per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that the basket included international calls so that domestic and other users would be no better off. He is wrong. The reduction in international calls, although included in the basket, will leave plenty of scope for even greater reductions in domestic tariffs than would otherwise have been the case.
The hon. Gentleman said that a typical household would face an increase of 6 per cent. In fact, the regulator has introduced a cap on the bill of the medium sized household which will mean that there can be no real increase in the tariffs for such a household.
The hon. Gentleman said that rental charges abroad were lower. The Director General of Telecommunications carries out a detailed study every year of our tariffs on a basket of aspects of telecommunications charges and compares them with those abroad. He finds that they are very much in line with charges abroad.
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposals would prevent the poorest from signing up. He ignores the new scheme being introduced by BT to spread the cost of signing up and, therefore, make it easier for people to do so.
The hon. Gentleman said that BT would be restricted and would not be allowed to provide entertainment services over its network while cable television companies would be able to do so. In fact, BT obtained franchises and provided entertainment and television services over its network in those franchise areas to the extent that that was technically feasible. It has decided to withdraw by and large from those franchises. As I said, none the less, from April 1994 it will be allowed to apply for all unfranchised areas on a national basis if it so wishes.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should establish performance targets. He was content with the performance of British Telecom when it was a nationalised industry and, indeed, he wishes to return it to the nationalised sector, but since British Telecom was privatised, its performance on every measure of quality and performance has improved and is up to international standards. The hon. Gentleman said nothing about his party's commitment, reaffirmed last week, to renationalise British Telecom. I am not surprised.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: My right hon. Friend's statement should be widely welcomed on both sides of the House. He has recognised that Mercury and British Telecom are marketing their services on a world stage and that that is most welcome to the British telecommunications industry. However, may I remind my right hon. Friend of a question which I addressed to him when he announced his review, which I fear slipped his ear at the time: will he go on please to examine the workings and efficiency of the regulator, Oftel?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome and for his recognition of the fact that this strengthens the international position of both British Telecom and Mercury. As for his question about Oftel, I am pleased with its performance. It has achieved effective regulation and lower prices for British Telecom users. I pay tribute to Oftel's work and to the response of the television companies. I thank also my officials for the good work that they have done in producing the review.

Mr. David Bellotti: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are Opposition Members who welcome the greater competition, the end of duopoly and the lower prices that have been announced today? However, there is still very much more work to do. Is the Secretary of State also aware that the greatest hindrance to the delivery of the Lifeline service is the installation cost and the deposit requested by British Telecom from elderly people who are often unable to meet that cost? Will he look into that matter?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in rural areas and in developing towns the greatest need is for the installation of public call boxes? Very often their installation does not match up to the development of those areas.
Lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep resentment that was caused on Christmas Day 1990 by the inability of people throughout the country to obtain

numbers from directory inquiries? Will he ensure that directory inquiries is made readily and freely available to those who wish to use that telecommunications service?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of the proposals. I agree that there could be an improvement in the provision of Lifeline services. BT proposes to spread the cost of connection for newly connected individuals. That, I believe, will provide the help that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
As for call boxes, when BT was privatised there were 77,000 of them in this country, of which on any one day a quarter were not working. There are now 100,000 call boxes, including Mercury's, of which on any day 96 per cent. are working. I shall certainly take back to BT the hon. Gentleman's point about directory inquiries on Christmas day.

Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on providing more choice and competition. Will he confirm that British Telecom has paid the Treasury more money in corporation tax and dividends since it was privatised than ever it did from profits when it was nationalised? When my right hon. Friend considers the granting of licences to overseas companies, will he look carefully at opportunities for reciprocity? We want the advantages of privatisation to be spread among all public communication networks throughout the world.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is correct when he says that BT pays much more each year in corporation tax than it used to pay in dividends when it was 100 per cent. owned by the Treasury. We do not intend to deprive our consumers of investments that may be made by overseas companies, but we shall certainly seek to ensure that their Governments open up their markets, both within the context of GATT and by means of direct representation, so that our companies can invest in those countries. We shall support any of our companies that seek waivers— for example, in the United States from the limitation on the ownership of more than 25 per cent. of an American telecommunications company. Morover, if it is treated as a dominant supplier under the Federal Communications Commission's rules, it will have our full backing when seeking entry into those markets.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement will come as a great disappointment to the many people who work in BT and Mecury, particularly to those who at this moment are to lose their jobs? Is he further aware that his commitment to back British companies by attempting to achieve reciprocity will be completely unsuccessful? His announcement fails to recognise the imminence of 1992 and the fact that our major European competitors will have the benefit of an integrated broad band network by the end of the century. His announcement has sounded the death knell of that happening here.
Does the Secretary of State also accept that the very many Conservative Members who represent rural constituencies will find that their constituents never benefit from any of the limited opportunities that he has put on offer today? Is he further aware that his statement is unacceptable and that his claim that it was welcomed by all who had made representations is misleading?

Mr. Lilley: BT said in its recent announcement about jobs that it hoped to achieve the greater level of efficiency through retirement and turnover on a natural basis. The key result of the changes that we have introduced, in this review and earlier, is a dynamic market which is generating jobs in a variety of firms and businesses. That will create new opportunities for people from BT.
In terms of broad band and optical fibre, we are ahead of the rest of the world. We have more mileage in trunk cabling than France or Germany. When BT was privatised there were only 13,000 km of optical fibres; there are now over 1·1 million km. BT is 'forging ahead and has a technical advantage over much of the rest of the world. Mercury is doing likewise.
It is a myth to suppose that it is always more expensive to supply rural users. Often it is just as low cost and the cost can be met by ways that we have opened up to BT, if need be using radio links instead of fixed links. So we believe that the rural user will benefit as much as anyone else from the changes that we have announced.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In replying to a question that I asked some time ago, my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that in the duopoly review he would put the user first. I congratulate him on doing far more than I think any user would have expected him to do at this stage in terms of keeping down prices. In response to the tirade of socialism and nationalisation that seems to be coming from Labour Members, will he say what happened when Germany decided to go the way of state monopoly in its mobile network, while the United Kingdom decided to have two private enterprise operators? Did the Germans increase their mobile network at the same rate as we have?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have indeed put the user first. The users will benefit enormously, as will the suppliers. He is right to mention the difference between the performance of this country and that of Germany, since at exactly the same time we decided to follow the competitive route in licensing two suppliers of cellular radio while the Germans had one monopolistic supplier. We now have a market five times larger than theirs and larger than any other country in the world.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Telecom of which he speaks is not the BT with which I can identify in my constituency? Dialling a telephone number in Clydesdale is almost a lottery in terms of whether one gets the right number. Is he aware that telephone kiosks have been closed in the rural community of Clydesdale and that, after two years of calling for their replacement, they have still not been replaced?

Mr. Lilley: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot identify with BT: it is no longer nationalised.

Mr. Steve Norris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent creative package that he has announced today. Does he agree that, in terms of telecommunications, the Conservatives have an absolutely marvellous story to tell? Since BT was denationalised, prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms and where there is greater competitive pressure—for example, in trunk calls—prices have fallen by as much as 30 per cent.

Mr. Lilley: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks, and he is absolutely right. Wherever competition is effective, prices have fallen even more. We believe that over the lifetime of the cap, which ends in 1993, the average price of calls since privatisation will have fallen by more than a third in real terms.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement means further featherbedding of the cable industry, much of which is in United States ownership? Will he also confirm that he has had many representations from many parts of the country, including my own, against that? How can he possibly justify the protection of the cable industry in the way that he is doing, and how on earth does that offer more competition? Will he undertake to publish as an addendum to the document that he intends to place in the Vote Office a full list of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have financial interests in British Telecom and the cable industry? Will he clearly advise them that if there are any votes on these matters they should not vote?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Of course the cable companies are not being feather-bedded. They will compete with BT for the provision of telephone services and BT has had the same opportunities to seek franchises as the cable companies and will have slightly better opportunities in future.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people, apart from the Opposition, will welcome this increase in competition? Competition is the friend of the consumer, and that point has been well made and understood. The consumer gains from competition, and deregulation, as my right hon. Friend has said, has been brought about by the Government. We now have two major players on the international scene, BT and Mercury, both of which are world-winning companies. Also, many thousands of small and medium-sized firms would never have been allowed to get into the business if liberalisation had not taken place.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many small businesses have grown up on the back of liberalisation. That is one reason why so many countries are beginning to emulate the changes that we have made.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The statement will be generally welcomed throughout the country. I should like further clarification on one or two matters. I am sure that some people who are not well acquainted with new maths will wonder when the 6·25 per cent. reduction will stop.
Is the Secretary of State being unduly optimistic about rural areas? Cable companies have told us that, for example, in Northern Ireland they are unlikely to go far beyond Belfast.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) spoke about the elderly, especially those living alone and who need telephones. They have not received much help with installation charges and they are sometimes penalised over portability. I know of old people who had a new phone installed and then moved to residential accommodation which had cable, and they had to pay another installation charge. Surely the companies should look after such elderly people.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the statement. He asks when the 6·25 per cent. real cuts will stop. The cap will be revised and renegotiated in July 1993 and no one can say what it will be thereafter.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cable coverage in Northern Ireland. Of course BT will have the same opportunities there as elsewhere to seek to operate in the unfranchised areas after April 1994.
We share the hon. Gentleman's worries about the elderly. That is one reason why BT has decided to introduce a scheme for spreading the charges. I will inquire about whether that applies to reconnection charges in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman envisages, and I shall write to him about that.

Sir Gerrard Neale: As an advocate of competition for 10 years, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on the announcement. I also congratulate him on refuting the allegation that Oftel has performed badly. There is a widespread feeling that it has performed excellently in improving choice. Does he agree that the Opposition's response to the statement shows why, if not their industry policy, certainly their telecommunications policy is impossible to sell? Does he further agree that equal access will give real choice to all telephone users within five years and must be a vindication of his announcement?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall pass on his compliments, which were well-merited, to Oftel and to Sir Bryan Carsberg.
My hon. Friend is quite right about Opposition policy. They have little in the way of policy that they are prepared to admit to and nothing that they could sell to the public, least of all their proposal to require BT to spend up to £21 billion over and above what is required for the commercially viable cabling of this country. I hope that within five years the majority of the country will have access to the second phase, the easiest type of equal access, which will spread onward from there as digitalisation and the new exchanges come in.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is worrying that he should have ministerial responsibility for such a vital and important industry in this country because he seems to be totally out of touch with the reality of the situation, which is that BT customer satisfaction is at its lowest level in the history of British telecommunications? The Minister ought to face up to that problem.
On the question of prices, what is the Secretary of State really saying? Is he telling the customer that bills will be reduced, or that the increase will not be as great as it might have been but that their bills will increase in any case? What the Minister is doing is a cruel deception on the people of this country.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member is quite wrong about the level of satisfaction. The latest survey shows that the number of people who are very dissatisfied with BT has shrunk to 2 per cent. and that about 18 times as many people were very satisfied with its performance. However, I am sure that BT can adequately defend itself on that front.
As regards bills being reduced only in real terms, as inflation comes down I expect 6¼ per cent. less than inflation to mean negative increases in bills, even in cash

terms. That will help inflation to come down and to give a boost to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's efforts in that direction.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend properly stressed the fact that only greater competition brings greater benefits to the consumer. Can he confirm that the success of that policy is manifest in the example of the value-added services industry, which is substantially more than the size of the German and French markets combined? Can he confirm that he has undertaken studies into the impact upon the value-added services market in Britain of renationalisation, as proposed by the Labour party? Would it reduce it to the size of the French and the German markets?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Value-added services in this country are of the order of £700 million, and are rising, whereas in France and Germany they are about £300 million each. I have not done any studies into the impact of renationalisation because I do not envisage that the Opposition will have any chance to carry out their policy, but I have no doubt that if they did my hon. Friend's guess about the direction of its effect is absolutely right.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: So that the general public are not misled by anything that the Secretary of State might say, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 48 per cent. of British Telecom shares are still owned by the state— the Government and the taxpayer —which means that they are only 3 per cent. short of having full control of the company?

Mr. Lilley: I can confirm that fact and there is no concealing it. When the last Labour Government owned 100 per cent. of the company, prices were rising in real terms.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to subsequent business. There is another statement after this on air traffic distribution. I shall call three more hon. Members from each side and then we must move on.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of telephone boxes in rural areas, especially of the old red telephone boxes? Can he tell the House what effect the provisions of the White Paper will have on those telephone boxes and how many of them actually work?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the time of privatisation, the Opposition expressed fears that the 77,000 telephone boxes then in operation would disappear. As I said earlier, there are now more than 100,000 in both rural and urban areas, 96 per cent. of which are operating every day. They are also checked every day.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: Does not the Secretary of State realise that his statement represents a narrow-minded, inward-looking attitude? His proposals mean that the opportunities provided by Britain's current world lead in fibre-optic technology will be lost. The advantages offered to the cable companies, which are largely foreign owned, will enable them to develop a system that will lead to needless duplication and triplication—and, indeed, to a second-rate and third-rate


service— while using foreign technology. Meanwhile, restraints on trade are denying British Telecom the opportunity to develop a world-class system in our markets, using British technology which Britain could then market to the world, with consequent benefits to our balance of payments and to British jobs.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may consider it narrow-minded to put the consumer's interests first, and to achieve reductions in real prices, but he completely ignores the fact that we are ahead of the rest of Europe in the introduction of optical fibre cables for trunk and other uses; we have achieved that by means of a competitive and deregulated market.

Dr. Keith Hampson: It is a pleasure to be able to declare an interest in the cable industry. I believe that the expansion of cable will enhance competition and choice throughout the country.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although British Telecom has so far been able to resist interconnections with cable operators, such operators will in future be able to interconnect with anyone, and that, should a company such as British Telecom make it difficult to agree terms, the director general will make a determination?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The White Paper mentions the regulator's powers to ensure a much easier, simpler, more streamlined process for interconnection, so that people on different networks will be able to communicate. Proper arrangements will eventually be made for the costs to be met.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I follow up the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), and ask why only 1·9 per cent. of the funds are to be put into research and development? The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend that we were ahead of the rest of Europe. If that is so, for how long will it remain so, given the meagreness of our investment in research and development and, particularly, in optical fibres? Why should the Electronic Equipment Association feel so uncomfortable about that general area of investment?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: British Telecom's research and development investment amounts to 1·9 per cent. of its turnover, which is exactly the same percentage as was invested under Labour. The big difference is that its turnover has expanded enormously, and, as a consequence, so has its research and development.

Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel): Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the successes of competition policy in telecommunications has been the emergence of the regulatory agency Oftel? Does he accept that the many opportunities that he has described today will require Oftel to make additional efforts, and can he assure us that adequate resources will be provided for it to do that important work?

Mr. Lilley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We do, of course, need an efficient and effective regulator while British Telecom remains in a dominant position and the structure of the market gives scope for monopolistic abuse in the absence of such a regulator. We cannot understand why the Labour party wishes to return to a regime that did not involve a regulator.

Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that advanced telecommunications are vital for peripheral regions such as Wales. To attract inward investment beyond branch plants, they are selling themselves on the basis of having advanced telecommunications infrastructures. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that such an infrastructure would provide Wales with a very good facility? Certainly Mr. Gwyn Jones, the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, agrees with me. If the right hon. Gentleman also agrees, what will he do to try to persuade British Telecom to install that infrastructure, and to ensure that it is installed beyond the obvious markets of Newport, Cardiff and Swansea?

Mr. Lilley: If, in the interests of competition, BT and the other operators are upgrading their operations and introducing the new technology, that will benefit Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I welcome it.

London Airports

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the London air traffic distribution rules.
Following consultation, the Civil Aviation Authority has recommended that Heathrow rules 1, 2 and 3 should now be set aside. The rules prohibit new operators of international scheduled passenger services from Heathrow, ban charter flights from Heathrow, and limit new domestic services using that airport.
I start from the position that the Government should intervene as little as possible in the civil aviation market. Needless intervention through rules and regulations harms the industry and the interest of passengers. The oldest of the present restrictions on access to Heathrow was imposed 14 years ago. Since then, the industry has evolved and changed. It has been entirely right to take a fresh look at the continued need for the rules.
I have reflected carefully on the CAA's advice since I received it seven weeks ago and I have listened to the views of a variety of interests. I have met a number of hon. Members and heard their opinions, and I have weighed the points put to me in correspondence.
I have concluded that it is right to accept the CAA's advice that rules 1, 2 and 3 should now be removed. I also accept that the restrictions on all cargo, business and general aviation should remain. The London rules have been remade today to give effect to the decision.
As there is already almost full utilisation of Heathrow's capacity, the net effect of abolition of the traffic distribution rules will be modest. The Civil Aviation Authority believes that, over time, a greater proportion of the present capacity of the airport is likely to be used by long-haul services. That would bring benefits to users and increase competition in the long-haul market.
In reaching my decision, I have addressed the possible impact of the abolition of the rules on regional services. Removal of the rules does not, of course, impose any requirement on the operators of regional services to give up operating at Heathrow. That is equally the case with foreign airlines using the airport. Present incumbents may find that more carriers will wish to negotiate with them over slots. But, just as before, it will be up to each airline to decide whether to enter into such negotiations.
In that context, I recognise the importance of controls on airport charges at Heathrow to ensure that regional air services are not treated unfairly. I am clear that airports should not be able, through their charging regimes, to abuse their position or exploit their users. The Government addressed this matter in 1986 when they gave the CAA powers to carry out the economic regulation of all sizeable airports. Section 41 of the Airports Act 1986 enables the CAA to apply a suitable remedy where it believes that an airport operator has adopted a trade practice or a pricing policy which unreasonably discriminates against any class of user of the airport or against any particular user. Those are important powers, available now. Indeed, they are powers that the CAA has already used in response to complaints by domestic airlines at Heathrow.
Some of those consulted during the review suggested that night flight restrictions at Heathrow might be relaxed. Hon. Members with constituencies around Heathrow have

made clear to me the importance that they attach to controls on aircraft noise. In response, we confirmed that we have no plans to relax the existing restrictions on night movements at Heathrow, which were set in 1988 and which are due to run to at least March 1993. I repeat that assurance this afternoon. I also confirm that I have no plans to end the system of runway alternation at Heathrow.
It has been suggested that removal of the rules would impinge on possible future development at Heathrow. But in practice the position is unchanged; if BAA wishes to undertake further terminal development, it will need to seek planning permission. Those with views on the environmental aspect, or any other aspect, would have the opportunity to give them. The Government's own position remains as described in the 1985 White Paper, in which we said that we would keep the matter under review, without commitment.
I have considered whether I should await the outcome of current work on the allocation of slots at congested airports before making changes to the traffic distribution rules. Both mechanisms have to do with managing demand, but the linkage should not be overstated. The rules determine the kinds of traffic that can use Heathrow; slots are then allocated among eligible airlines under the slot allocation process.
There is no immediate prospect of a major change in the way in which slots are allocated at busy airports, and I see no reason to delay decisions on the future of rules on that account. My decision does not imply that slots will be available for airlines hitherto denied access. Carriers will need to seek slots in the usual way from the airport co-ordinator. The availability of a slot depends not only on the runway situation but on terminal and aircraft parking facilities. The Government are not involved in the slot allocation process.
The present restrictions on business and general aviation at Heathrow and Gatwick reflect our perception that an airliner carrying large numbers of passengers—including perhaps some business men—might otherwise be displaced by a business aircraft carrying only three or four people. We are ready to look at any convincing case which the business aviation sector can make for taking a different view, but for the present I continue to believe that the existing policy is right. I also remain of the view that, where there is a conflict, passenger services should take priority over all-cargo flights.
The British air transport industry has enjoyed successful development over recent years. Gatwick has emerged as a major world airport. I am confident that Gatwick's established position, its convenience for Europe and its excellent rail access to central London will ensure its continuing success, irrespective of any traffic adjustments that might in due course follow from the changes that I have announced today. Likewise, buoyant medium-term forecasts make it very clear that all the London airports, including Stansted's splendid new terminal, are going to be needed.
I am confident for all these reasons that the time has come to remove the restrictions at Heathrow airport in the way the CAA has recommended.

Mr. John Prescott: Today's major statement will affect British aviation over the next few years. It is about an issue that is not mentioned in or directly related to the statement. Today's statement is


about and directly a part of the present negotiations between the United States and the United Kingdom about fundamentally changing our airport distribution rules primarily to assist two bankrupt American airlines—Pan American and TWA—to sell to two major strong American competitors, American Airlines and United Airlines, which are demanding the valuable Heathrow connections. The United Kingdom's agreement is necessary to change the Bermuda agreement. Does the Secretary of State accept that he has a powerful hand in those negotiations?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the policy change is necessary to conclude the negotiations with the Americans this week? We must assume that the negotiations have now been concluded. Can the Secretary of State give us some information about the agreement?
Does the Secretary of State accept that allowing access to Heathrow to those major American competitors, with their powerful United States hub-and-spoke network and frequent flyer and computer registration systems, when those competitors have already secured the American domestic traffic, guarantees them the major part of passenger carriage across the Atlantic? That will be damaging to the interests of British Airways. What does British Airways estimate will be the cost in terms of loss of traffic as a result of the agreement? Does BA think that the agreement is a good deal?
Perhaps the only airline enthusiastically to accept the Secretary of State's policy is Virgin Atlantic Airways. What other country has placed its major international air company in competition with both its own national competitors and international competitors?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the conclusion that the linkage of slot allocation and runway capacity with traffic distribution rules should not be overstated runs counter to the view of everyone who gave evidence to the CAA report and counter to the CAA report's judgment?
Why did the consulted interests referred to in the statement deliberately exclude workers or their representatives, particularly when they are co-operating with many thousands of redundancies as a result of the major changes in aviation stemming from the Gulf war? Does the Secretary of State accept that employees have a right to be consulted about those matters?
The Secretary of State said that he had considered the effect on regional airports and was assured that there were remedies against unreasonable discrimination. However, is he aware that last year landing fees rose by 15 per cent. and have risen by 25 per cent. this year? Such increases effectively cause increases in fares, which discriminate against smaller aircraft from regional airports when compared with the landing fees for huge jumbos which have many passengers and can spread their costs accordingly. Does the Secretary of State accept that not only will regional airports be discriminated against, but that the concentration of long-haul aircraft movements at Heathrow will again undermine Gatwick and the interline capacity of regional airports, and will throw into doubt the future of Stansted, which is shortly to be opened by the Queen?
In his statement, the Secretary of State made it clear that he rules out extra night flights at Heathrow until 1993. Presumably, that leaves the matter open for review in 1993. He said that he had no plans to end the system of runway alternation at Heathrow, but the pressure for access to Heathrow will soon change the requirements.
Indeed, flight movements could be increased without the need for a flight planning agreement. That will add to the congestion at Heathrow, especially on the M25 as people begin to move from Gatwick to Heathrow. He must already be aware that there is a tremendous cost in congestion.
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that by rushing his statement before the House today he has signalled a policy which will increase congestion and environmental problems, which will weaken the major British air carrier and reduce the possibilities for regional airlines to grow with our network system—all for the need to pursue an ideological policy of competition and deregulation which has already destroyed much of our shipping, bus and rail industries and which is about to subject our aviation industry to the same fate?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. The seven weeks that have elapsed since I received the CAA's recommendations show that we have given most careful thought not only to its representations, but to other comments made to the Department.
The hon. Gentleman began by asking about the negotiations with the United States. I remind him that my predecessor had already commissioned the review from the CAA before the request from the United States. The review was already in train when we received the request. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to assume that the negotiations on Bermuda 2 have been concluded. To implement the request from the United States would require a change in the traffic distribution rules. The change in the TDRs which I have announced today will not allow any new American airlines to land at Heathrow. That would require a revision of Bermuda 2. The negotiations are continuing and a further phase will take place on Thursday of this week. I cannot anticipate whether that will be a means of reaching a conclusion.
We have made it clear to the United States that what it seeks to do— to replace two airlines with United Airlines and American Airlines— will make a substantial commercial difference to the transatlantic situation. It has acknowledged that and it accepts that it is necessary to make other changes that will be beneficial to British airlines if their proposal is to be contemplated. The precise terms are currently being discussed. It is too early to say whether we shall achieve a successful outcome, but the Americans have raised the issue and if they wish it to reach a successful outcome, they must make proposals that will enable a competitive overall balance to be properly maintained. We are not yet in a position to say that that will happen.
The Government wish to encourage a multi-airline policy. Therefore, it is agreeable that Virgin is also offering a service to British and other passengers. It is good not only for Virgin but for British Airways to have such competition.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the views of those employed at the airports concerned. It was for the Civil Aviation Authority to decide whom to consult as part of its review. It has consulted a wide spectrum of interests and, in addition, many others have written to the Department. We have been able to take all those views into account.
The hon. Gentleman was correct to say that, left to themselves, landing charges could be used in a


discriminatory fashion. However, I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that the Airports Act 1986, under which the CAA scrutinises proposals for landing charges, specifically and explicitly excludes discriminatory changes in landing charges. If the authority is satisfied that a proposal for an increase in landing charges is discriminatory, it can prevent that increase from taking place. There is a precedent for that.
I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the policy on night flights, which has existed for some time, remains unchanged as a result of the statement. The policy, which was announced some time ago, was that there would be no change in night flights at least until 1993. I have re-emphasised that position today.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the statement affects many constituencies. However, we have a heavy day in front of us with a ten-minute Bill, which is to be opposed, and a debate in which there will be considerable pressure to speak. I will move on at 5 pm. I ask hon. Members to ask brief, single questions.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate the widespread local concern that his statement will lead to increased noise, nuisance and congestion round Heathrow? Although his categorical assurance, limited though it was, about night flights and alternation of runways will be welcomed, the time limit will be a source of grave local concern. Is he aware of the massive hostility to any concept of a third runway or a fifth terminal at Heathrow? If his statement leads to increased pressure for those, it will be a black day for people round Heathrow.

Mr. Rifkind: I am extremely conscious of the legitimate points to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention. That is why I have been emphatic in saying that nothing in the decision on traffic distribution rules will change the position on those matters to which he rightly referred. The matter may be reviewed in years to come. I have no doubt about the strong feelings of many of my hon. Friends and of other hon. Members whose constituents are affected by the way in which airports operate. We must not take into account only the interests of the airlines and of the travelling public. They must be balanced against the interests of those who live near airports before any policies are determined. That is the basis on which I shall reach decisions.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the statement will affect regional airports? He mentioned slots. From now on, slots will be auctioned and that could affect the small airlines and the small businesses that rely on those airlines.

Mr. Rifkind: Nothing in today's announcement provides for an auctioning of slots. Individual airlines may be approached by others that wish to enter negotiations with them. It will be entirely a matter for a regional airline whether it wishes to respond to such a request. There is no change in the slot allocation procedure. At present, a consultancy is examining the whole question of slots, but

it will be a long time before it reaches its views and puts recommendations to us. I do not envisage in the short term any changes in slot allocation procedure.

Mr. Terry Dicks: May I first criticise my right hon. and learned Friend for the discourtesy within his Department? I understand that outside interested bodies knew about the statement some time today— if not yesterday— whereas hon. Members did not know about it until it came up on the monitor at 1 pm. That is an appalling way in which to treat hon. Members, especially those with interests in airports.
I agree reluctantly, but almost wholeheartedly, with the analysis by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) of the implications of the statement. There will now be increasing demand on Heathrow and there will be pressure for a third runway there, which my right hon. and learned Friend still refuses to rule out. Despite his assurance about 1993 and night flights, as I am the Member of Parliament who represents most of Heathrow, I want an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend today that the guarantee of no night flights will continue well beyond 1993.
I hope that in the short time available—within a week or so—and certainly before 6 June 1991, the Department of Transport will announce what capital investment will be involved in surface access and in the infrastructure round Heathrow. That is sorely needed before we talk about anything else.

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, he was good enough to show his concern that some outside interests might have been given advance notice of my statement. I have checked that and can assure him that no outside interest was given advance notice of the timing of my statement. I should be worried about any suggestion to the contrary, and if my hon. Friend has reason to believe to the contrary, I should be grateful if he would inform me.
With regard to the other part of my hon. Friend's remarks, I understand his legitimate fear, as a constituency Member, that there may be increased pressure for the changes to which he referred. I hope that I can reassure him that I attach the same importance as he does to ensuring that there is no unreasonable imposition on those who live in the vicinity of airports. Any proposals to change the existing rules could be contemplated only after the most thorough examination and investigation. I referred to the noise limits extending at least until 1993 simply because those were the precise terms of the statement made by my predecessor some time ago and I wished to say that no such change was being made as a result of today's statement. I am conscious of the fact that airlines would like changes. Indeed, we have received requests recently from at least one airline for changes in night flights and we said that they would not be permitted.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister will be aware that Manchester airport is in my constituency and that its future development is of the first importance to me. What consultation was there about the issues addressed by his statement today with Manchester airport and other airports outside the south-east of England? Will he comment specifically on any implications for the regional airports? Is he aware that people flying


from Manchester are sick and tired of having to change at London airports in order to reach foreign destinations which should be available from Manchester?

Mr. Rifkind: The Civil Aviation Authority consulted a wide range of interests, including other airports in the United Kingdom such as Manchester. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be highly desirable to see significant improvements in the opportunity for people to fly from regional airports direct to destinations overseas. I wish strongly o encourage that. The more that it can be achieved, the more the public interest will have been served.

Mr. David Wilshire: Although I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's assurances about night flights, I do not believe that they will work. The pressures that have now been unleashed will force change for the worse. What will we receive in exchange for abandoning those rules? Where else in the world are there two airports in one city, with foreign airlines allowed to go where they choose? It is crazy to throw away our bargaining card.
Furthermore, my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about slots are nonsense. There is a link between slots and rules. If he does not believe it now, he will find out shortly the hard way. Operators' licences require access to be given at Heathrow and he must deal with that. I am appalled, my constituents are appalled and British airlines are appalled. The only people who are happy this afternoon are United States airlines, which are laughing all the way to the bank.

Mr. Rifkind: Although I understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling, I am afraid that he is misinformed. He implies that an airline has only to apply for the right to land at Heathrow to be granted permission. I have read the rules. My hon. Friend knows even better than I that Heathrow is already almost full. Therefore, the only way in which new airlines will receive permission to land there is if they are given a slot by the scheduling committee. That is possible only if airlines that now use the airport cease to wish to do so.
My hon. Friend seems suspicious that there will be increasing pressure for night flights, but my view, and that of the Government, is that the number of night flights will depend not on the level of pressure, but on the merits of the case. My precedessors and I have made it clear that we believe that night flights produce substantial environmental problems and have a significant effect on the quality of life of those living in the vicinity of airports. There is no reason to believe that there will be any changes.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, my predecessor established a working party to consider the long-term requirements for runways in the south-east. The suggestion from the Civil Aviation Authority is that there will certainly be no need for a new runway anywhere in the south-east until well into the next century. That should properly be considered as a long-term requirement. I have no intention of taking rushed decisions on such an important issue.

Mr. David Marshall: This shameful decision is against the best interests of the United Kingdom and British airlines; it is simply a sell-out to American interests. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, the Secretary of State should be absolutely ashamed of himself because he has sold out to America and received

nothing in return. The decision will have terrible effects on regional and Scottish airports, the regional and Scottish economy and small airlines. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that, in the longer term, there will be continued regional and Scottish flights in and out of Heathrow— something that everyone in the Scottish regions wants continued?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He knows perfectly well that the proposals are the result of a strong recommendation from the Civil Aviation Authority and have been made after the most extensive consultation. He also knows that nothing that I have announced today will enable a single other American airline to land at Heathrow. Any such opportunities can be considered only as part of the renegotiation of Bermuda 2, which is something whose outcome I do not wish to predict now. No regional airline need withdraw from its existing use of Heathrow unless it wishes. That is a matter for regional airlines to decide.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: In my judgment, my right hon. and learned Friend has made absolutely the right decision in terms of the national interest. I am sure that he will agree that the rules served an extremely effective purpose some time ago, but we have moved on and airlines now operate in a wholly different context. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that abolishing the rules, which earlier served Gatwick extremely well and helped to build it into a major international airport, will not have a deleterious effect on the pattern of flight traffic at Gatwick airport?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for my decision. I am entirely confident, because Gatwick has established a reputation as a world airport. It is already one of the largest airports in the world and has a dedicated number of companies anxious to continue serving it. I have not the slightest reason to believe that Gatwick has anything other than a healthy future to look forward to.

Mr. Harry Cohen: When the Secretary of State for Transport caved in to the American Administration and the buyers of Pan Am, did he get anything for London, other than more congestion? What about the effects of the proposal on Stansted and the City airports, which the Secretary of State did not mention? Will not many of the flights that will not now go to Heathrow end up at those airports, producing more congestion round them?

Mr. Rifkind: The whole point about Stansted is that it should serve the demand that cannot be met by Heathrow and Gatwick, both of which are already, if not full, very near full capacity. Therefore, the new terminal at Stansted will provide a viable means of enabling the traffic requirements of the south-east of the country to be properly accommodated.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: In that a consequence of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement today might be to reduce the access to Heathrow of domestic airlines, does not it also provide an opportunity for regional airports, particularly the larger ones, to enhance their route network? Is not it time that we laid the ghost that we can fly out of this country only via one of London's airports?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to emphasise that what most people who live in the regions, in Scotland and elsewhere would far prefer is to be able to fly directly to destinations in Europe and across the Atlantic. They do not wish to go through Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted if they can avoid doing so. Anything that encourages direct services from cities elsewhere in the United Kingdom is to be greatly encouraged.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Secretary of State said that the effect of changing the rules would be modest, why has he bothered to change the rules? Is not it the case that, far from being modest, the changes at Heathrow will be major and there will be an auction to get in and out of Heathrow? Although he said, quaintly, that no existing airline flying from the regions into Heathrow need give up its flights, is it not the case that no protection is given to those services from the regions into Heathrow, which goes directly against the advice given to him by experts, including Lord King of British Airways?

Mr. Rifkind: I said in my statement that the net effect of the decision would be modest, by which I meant that as Heathrow airport is close to full utilisation of its capacity, any changes could come only from new airlines replacing existing ones already using Heathrow. Therefore, I correctly described the net effect as modest. There will be no obligation on existing airlines using Heathrow— regional or otherwise— to terminate their use. It is a matter for the airlines to decide— that is an important point to understand.

Dame Janet Fookes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the absolute necessity to the west country of access to Heathrow at a reasonable cost? So that everyone can plan for a better economy in the west country, will he give a categoric assurance that those airlines will not be priced out?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I believe that my hon. Friend can have that assurance. It is crucial that the legislation governing landing charges is taken into account. It expressly prevents discriminatory landing charges for different classes of user. Recently the Civil Aviation Authority required BAA to refund some provincial and regional airlines for excess charges demanded from them. That suggests that the existing legislation has teeth and can protect the legitimate interests of regional airlines, which is something I want to continue.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State is already aware of the concern felt by many of us in the west country about the economic impact of cutting links between the west country and the world. Will he give the House two assurances? First, he said that the CAA could act. Will he assure the House that he will intervene to ensure that it does act and that its actions are not discriminatory? Secondly, will he——

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman said that the CAA could act, but it will have a statutory responsibility to ensure that there is no discrimination against any class of user. The CAA has a legal obligation, not simply discretion.

Sir Alan Glyn: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that my constituency is one of the worst affected by aircraft noise. May I ask two questions——

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question only, please.

Sir Alan Glyn: I shall ask one question. Will the new plans increase the number of flights to and from London airport?

Mr. Rifkind: They will have little effect on increasing the total number of flights because Heathrow is already near its full capacity. Therefore, any significant changes will occur only if existing users decide to withdraw from Heathrow and other users take up the slots made available. There will be no significant increase in the overall use of Heathrow as a result of today's statement.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely how he will guarantee continued access from the regional airports? How will airports like Manchester be guaranteed not only access to Heathrow, but an increased number of overseas flights? We have already been blocked on the second matter, and what the Secretary of State has announced today guarantees that we will be blocked on the first. We are outraged by that.

Mr. Rifkind: The liberalisation that has already occurred in respect of many of these rules has enabled airports like Manchester to extend the services that they can offer to various parts of the world. I wish that process to continue. Existing users are not affected by today's decision. Airlines that currently use Heathrow will be perfectly entitled to continue to use it.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what is the maximum permitted level of air traffic movements at Heathrow? How close to that limit is the airport, and how will the situation be affected by the decision to allow series charter flights to use Heathrow?

Mr. Rifkind: The extent to which Heathrow can be used depends not just on runway facilities but on terminal and parking facilities. I am advised that at present those facilities are almost fully utilised. I do not believe that the decision on charter flights will have any significant effect. Even before restrictions on charter flights were introduced 14 years ago, about 90 per cent. of all charter operators chose to use Gatwick. It is very unlikely that a significant change will result from this decision.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Are not regional airlines already being forced out of Humberside, as well as Heathrow, because of very steep increases in landing charges? With these changes, life will be even harder for regional airlines. Already, Air UK has pulled out of the Humberside-Heathrow route, and Brymon, which was due to take it over on 1 April, has announced that it will not do so because it cannot afford the cost of the changes that are being introduced. The Secretary of State is decimating regional interlining and the development of a network of flights in this country.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman discloses a lack of awareness of how the system operates. He may be correct that regional airlines would like landing charges to be lower, but he is not entitled to say that there is discrimination against regional airlines. Indeed, the law


specifically prohibits such discrimination, and the Civil Aviation Authority is obliged to intervene in respect of any proposal that would conflict with the law.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) in supporting this proposal. In view of the shortage of slots, no airline should be allowed to use slots solely for the purpose of driving off a competitor airline. Airlines must use slots because they want to fly the routes, and such services must not be unviable and cross-subsidised by other routes.

Mr. Rifkind: I take my hon. Friend's point. The way in which the Heathrow scheduling committee operates is not a matter over which the Government have any direct control. However, I certainly hope that slots will be used in such a way as to benefit the public to the maximum extent, and not abused in the way to which my hon. Friend has properly referred.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What steps did the Secretary of State take to ascertain the professional judgment and views of the air traffic controllers? Did their association approve of the decision?

Mr. Rifkind: My statutory adviser is the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA is responsible for looking into these matters and making recommendations to the Secretary of State. In this case, the authority carried out the fullest consultation with all interested parties. Many people were invited to put forward their views. The Civil Aviation Authority made a very strong and unambiguous recommendation. That recommendation has been published, and the hon. Gentleman is free to read it if he has not done so already.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he is aware that his predecessor, when announcing on 5 June 1985 that a fifth terminal would not be constructed at Heathrow, said:
I am pleased to be able to honour … the Government's pledge that terminal 5 would not be constructed."—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 310.]
Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government have taken note of the use of the word "pledge"?

Mr. Rifkind: I say to my hon. Friend what I said in my original statement: the Government's policy remains as outlined in the White Paper of 1985.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State agree that increasing pressure on Heathrow will inevitably result in increased landing charges? Will not that result in a further increase in fares for journeys between London and Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow? The fares on those routes are already ludicrously high. Does the Secretary of State agree that the competition that is necessary to reduce fares will simply be squeezed out?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He implies that BAA has an unqualified and uncontrolled right to levy landing charges. In fact, its proposals can be —and have been—overruled by the Civil Aviation Authority when it is perceived to have gone beyond its proper discretion.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that this modest move towards deregulation—towards the removal of artificial control over the movements of the airline market —will be continued while he is in office, so that Heathrow may begin to develop, as it should, as a modern airport that provides proper international services for the people of this country?

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed, I wish the movement to continue, but subject to its not having any unreasonable consequences for those who live in the vicinity of Heathrow. As I tried to indicate earlier, it is important to achieve a proper balance. The interests of the airport cannot be the only consideration.

Mr. Patrick Ground: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that for people who live near Heathrow one of the most important elements of Government policy is the commitment to an improved night noise climate round the airport? Will he confirm that that continues to be Government policy?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I can confirm that that continues to be Government policy. Indeed, it is a very important consideration.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Given this initiative to allow all airlines equal access to Heathrow, when does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to announce steps to give foreign carriers similar access to Manchester and other regional airports?

Mr. Rifkind: I should certainly like to see further liberalisation of air traffic. At present, we are pursuing a number of initiatives at European Community level. The European Commission has made proposals that point in that direction. We shall certainly support strongly any steps towards enabling our regional airports to compete effectively and to provide the services that their communities want.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my long-suffering constituents who live beneath the flight path at Heathrow are continually fearful that there will be an increase in the number of night flights and that a fifth terminal will be built? Those people will welcome the sympathy that my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed today, but in due course he will have to go much further to allay their fears completely. May I ask him to do so at the first opportunity?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that what I have said today will not be construed as a simple expression of sympathy. Indeed, I wish to provide practical support and to ensure that the legitimate interests of those who live near our major airports are protected from the very damaging environmental consequences that inevitably flow from the way in which modern airports operate. I do not pretend that these are easy matters, and I do not intend to address them simply by making soothing noises. I wish to ensure that legitimate interests are properly protected. That will mean occasionally saying no to the requests of airports and airlines.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for making this statement in advance of the further Bermuda 2 negotiations. It would


be helpful to the House if we were to have a proper debate on civil air transport. Issues of the most fundamental kind have been raised. I am grateful and sympathetic to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he, too, would welcome such a debate.

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, which will be drawn to the attention to the Leader of the House.

Mr. David Harris: If the Civil Aviation Authority has a statutory duty to act against discriminatory charges, why on earth has it not already acted to deal with the fact that the same charge is levied in respect of a small Brymon Dash 7 coming in from the west country as in respect of a jumbo jet arriving from across the Atlantic? That is terribly unfair. It will sound the death knell of the small regional companies unless something is done.

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly it is for BAA to seek to justify to the Civil Aviation Authority the respective cost of landing charges for smaller and larger aircraft. If my hon. Friend believes that the existing statutory requirements, under which the Civil Aviation Authority operates, are inadequate, I should be interested to hear any suggested improvements, but the legislation expressly outlaws discriminatory practices. There will always be a range of views as to what constitutes a discriminatory practice, but it is for the British Airports Authority to satisfy the CAA if it wishes to make changes that give rise to controversy.

Mr. Alan Amos: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his courageous decision to get rid of the outdated traffic distribution rules which hinder competition and which have acted against the interests of the consumer? Does he agree that if we want to establish a competitive multi-airline business in Britain which will give consumers more choice, lower fares and a higher-quality service, all the small airlines, such as those which use my local airport, Newcastle, must be allowed access to Heathrow on an equal and fair basis to British Airways?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm welcome for today's statement. I agree with his desire to see the most beneficial use made of our airport facilities, consistent with the other requirements to which I referred throughout the statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that three hon. Gentlemen have not been called. There is great pressure on time today. We must move on to the presentation of Bills.

BILL PRESENTED

HOMEWORKERS

Mr. Keith Vaz, supported by Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, presented a Bill to extend the rights of homeworkers so that they will receive the same protection from employment, health and safety at work and financial legislation currently afforded to employees undertaking similar work on the employer's premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 27 March and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Shops

Mr. John Marshall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to relax certain restrictions on the opening hours of shops and other places where a retail trade or business is carried on; to make provision for licensing Sunday trading at such places; to make transitional provision as to the rights of persons employed as shopworkers; and for connected purposes.
The House might like to know that I have been authorised by the Consumers Association to say that it supports the principles of my Bill and hopes that the House will support it too.
Some weeks ago the Prime Minister, in a typical moment of understatement, described the Sunday trading laws as bizarre. Who can defend a situation where it is legal to sell a bottle of gin on Sunday but illegal to sell a packet of teabags? The latter-day Marie Antoinettes seem to think that it is moral to drink gin but wrong to drink a cup of tea on Sunday. Who can defend a position where it is legal to sell plants but illegal to sell the pots into which they might be put, and where it is legal to sell Sunday sport but illegal to sell the Bible on Sunday? Who can defend the absurd situation where cinemas can open legally for trade on Sunday, but a video shop, which seeks to sell or rent out the video of the same film that the viewer can see at the cinema, is acting illegally? It seems to be all right in the view of the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign to watch a film at the cinema but wrong to watch the video of that film in the bosom of one's home.
The Sunday trading law is rarely enforced. Every week it is broken by the 60,000 shops which open regularly to serve the needs of customers. The number of prosecutions is very small. A law which is regarded as so indefensible and so out of date that no one or very few seek to enforce it brings the whole rule of law into disrepute. If the law is regarded as out of date, that is not an argument for not enforcing it; it is an argument for repealing it here and now. The irony is that if the law were enforced there would be a minor revolution and a major campaign to ensure that it was changed dramatically.
The Shops Act 1950 was passed for a different era. It was an era of austerity and not of plenty, at a time when the majority of married women did not go out to work. It was passed long before anyone had thought of a DIY centre or a garden centre, and when no video shops existed anywhere in the country. The position has changed completely. Some 70 per cent. of married women go out to work. I hope I am not regarded as chauvinistic if I say that British industry could not survive without the work which women do.
Shopping on a Saturday is frequently a most unpleasant experience. One has only to get into a supermarket check-out or go to a toy shop just before Christmas to realise how unpleasant shopping on a Saturday can be. Since 1950 there has been a dramatic change in our attitude towards Sunday. Sunday sport, which was completely uncommon, is now regular and successful. More people go to watch cricket at Lords on a Sunday than on a Saturday or any other day of the week. Similarly, we have professional football on a Sunday, and it is not unknown for Wimbledon finals to take place on Sundays as well. Cinemas are open on Sunday. And of course the opening hours of public houses on a Sunday have been increased by a motion of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Parliament does not open on a Sunday.

Mr. Marshall: I sometimes think that those who have very little to say, apart from sedentary observations, would be better to keep quiet.
Sunday trading is defended by two unrepresentative
bodies, one being the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers which represents one in 11 shopworkers. Sunday is rightly regarded as a day of rest and a day for the family, but many family-style activities are regarded as illegal under the 1950 Act. Who can say that it is bad for the family to be able to rent a video to watch in their own home, to go to a DIY centre and buy paint and wallpaper so that they can get on with improving their own home, to go to a garden centre to buy plants and other things for the garden?
Opponents of reform say that change would revolutionise Sunday. I should merely like to make two points about that. First, the Scottish sabbath has no protection from Sunday trading but many more people in Scotland than in England go to church, so the protection of Sunday does not guarantee that people go to church. I regret the recent publicised decline in church attendance. Secondly, many shops already open illegally on a Sunday, regardless of the state of the law.
The Bill seeks to introduce a system of licensed Sunday trading so that shops which currently open illegally, such as DIY centres, garden centres and convenience and neighbourhood stores, would be eligible to apply for licences to enable them to trade on Sundays. Others, such as the major multiples, major supermarkets and stores of over 3,000 sq ft, would be able to trade, again under licence, between 12 noon and 6 pm. That would show that there is a difference between Sunday and the rest of the week.
The Bill would also introduce provision for widespread Sunday trading in the six weeks before Christmas. Nothing destroys the spirit of goodwill that Christmas is meant to generate more than going shopping in a toy shop on a Saturday before Christmas. Conditions are unbearable. The queues are even longer than at normal supermarket check-outs.
The Bill would introduce local authority licensing
which would mean that it would not be a formality. Local authorities could take account of the characteristics of an area.
The Bill would also introduce protection for employees who do not want to work on a Sunday. This is the first attempt to do that. I urge those who believe that there is a huge reservoir of people who do not want to work on a Sunday to consider the position at the moment. This morning I received a letter from a director of Do It All Ltd. in which he says:
All our Sunday workers are paid premium rates and are volunteers. Indeed, the desire to work on Sunday is so strong that in many locations we have to rota the staff.
More people want to work on Sunday in that DIY store than there are jobs available.
The leaders of USDAW should point out to the House and the country that we have 2·2 million shop workers of whom 200,000 are paid-up members of USDAW. It represents one shop worker in 11. It should be regarded as being as unrepresentative as the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign.
I regard it as unfortunate that the "Keep Sunday Special" campaign has sought to rubbish my Bill and to


oppose it without having the courtesy to ask me for a sight of it. That suggests that those involved have closed minds. They have issued a press release stating that they want a right of veto over Government measures on Sunday trading. I believe that that is wrong because they are unrepresentative and a small minority. They seek power without responsibility—the preserve of the harlot throughout the ages.
Under my Bill, individuals would be free to choose whether to work; they would be free to choose whether to open their shops; they would be free to choose whether to shop. Many will choose not to do so, but all should be free to make that choice. The defeat of the Shops Bill in 1986 underlined the need for compromise. This Bill provides a workable compromise, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: Having listened with great care to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), I am even more pleased that I have sought your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to rise to oppose this Bill. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman should re-read—if he has read it—the report of the full debate on the Shops Bill that was held on 14 April 1986, which was a classic debate covering this whole subject. It commenced at 3.45 pm and lasted until midnight. We had 8 hours and 15 minutes of reasoned, articulate, sincere and forthright arguments from hon. Members of all parties. As most hon. Members will recall, that Bill was defeated by 296 votes to 282—a majority of 14 votes.
Shops legislation, especially on the emotive subject of Sunday trading, will always engender considerable interest and inevitably conflicting opinions. Even if I were to attempt to sum up my total opposition to this Bill in the short time now available to me, I could say little that would be different from the many arguments that I have already made when discussing similar Bills to reform the Shops Act 1950.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South suggested that his Bill is the first attempt to protect workers on Sundays. Again, I ask him to read the report of another debate. I presented a ten-minute Bill entitled the Shops (Sunday Trading and Workers' Protection) Bill on 14 May 1986, which recognised the major criticism of the 1950 Act; its many and varied anomalies; its complications and, above all, the difficulties of enforcement. My Bill called for a standing conference and named the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is now the Father of the House, to chair discussions, proving that the only real solution is to seek agreement beyond the realms of personal and political prejudice.
I said then—I repeat again today—that any new proposals must provide adequate protection for some of the lowest paid workers—the shop workers. There must be wide involvement and comprehensive consultation with those who are directly or indirectly involved. The House should continue to seek consent by discussion and negotiation and should not attempt to tinker with a problem that requires great care and protracted negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman's Bill is second best when it comes to employee protection. It is essentially an exercise in damage limitation. No employee can be adequately

safeguarded once the dam has been breached. Where are the proposals in the Bill to ensure the employment, remuneration and working conditions of the employees who would be expected to work on Sundays? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the cost, and the prices for the retail and distributive industries, or the interests and wishes of consumers? What about the suggested increase in crime; the demands on transport; the car parking; the effect on the environment and the interests of residents, to name but a few of the issues that the hon. Gentleman purposely overlooked?
Even more important, despite—or perhaps because of —the hon. Gentleman's known association with the deregulation lobby, he has blatantly disregarded or conveniently overlooked the talks that have already been planned and arranged by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, Home Office. The hon. Gentleman's Bill is singularly ill-timed, given that those talks are about to take place.
In the debate on the Shops Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) called on the Government in the last paragraph of his speech to withdraw their Bill and to hold a conference of all interests to work out agreed changes in the law that could be widely acceptable. His sound advice was rejected and the Government suffered the most humiliating defeat of their term in office.
Five years have passed and they now seek consensus. My union, USDAW, has accepted a meeting with the Minister of State, Home Office, on 11 April for talks about reform. The other organisations involved include "Keep Sunday Special"; "Sort out Sunday"; the Association of District Councils; the National Institute of Chambers of Commerce and Industry; the Free Church Federal Council; the British Council of Churches; the Irish Council of Churches; the Institute of Safety and Public Protection; the Board of Deputies of British Jews; the Churches' Main Committee; Churches Together in England; the Church of England Board for Social Responsibility; and Outlets Providing for Everyday Needs. Most have accepted dates, and discussions are already planned. That is a positive response and the most sensible and logical conclusion to this emotive subject.
My union, USDAW, is not Luddite. Whether or not only one in 11 shop workers is a member, it still has 400,000 members. They are law-abiding and expect all others to obey the law until such time as Parliament is convinced that there is a need for a change. We expect everyone, including the Prime Minister, to advocate and to ensure that the 1950 Act is not violated and that local authorities carry out their responsibilities if anyone attempts any blatant abuse.
If the hon. Member for Hendon, South is not prepared to withdraw his Bill, on the basis of the talks that are already planned, I have no alternative but to ask the House to join me in the No Lobby to vote against his Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 144.

Division No. 86]
[5.17 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)






Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Bowis, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Bright, Graham
Marlow, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Monro, Sir Hector


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Colvin, Michael
Norris, Steve


Conway, Derek
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, Richard


Devlin, Tim
Price, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Riddick, Graham


Dykes, Hugh
Roe, Mrs Marion


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Favell, Tony
Sims, Roger


Fox, Sir Marcus
Speller, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Squire, Robin


Fraser, John
Steen, Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Hague, William
Thurnham, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Tracey, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, Jerry
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hayward, Robert
Walters, Sir Dennis


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Warren, Kenneth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Whitney, Ray


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Wiggin, Jerry


Janman, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)



Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Barry Field and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Knowles, Michael



Knox, David





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald
Cohen, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cormack, Patrick


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Bellotti, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Body, Sir Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Evennett, David





Fearn, Ronald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fry, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Maria
Mudd, David


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Gale, Roger
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Hara, Edward


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gregory, Conal
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pawsey, James


Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harris, David
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Dawn


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rowlands, Ted


Hood, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Illsley, Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Irvine, Michael
Snape, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Kilfedder, James
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAllion, John
Wallace, James


McAvoy, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N.


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Maclennan, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


McMaster, Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Winterton, Nicholas


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Marek, Dr John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Meacher, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. David Marshall


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has two distinct parts but there is a common theme—the reduction of congestion. Congestion can be relieved, of course, by constructing new roads—parts I and II of the Bill provide new opportunities for that—and by minimising the delay and diversion of traffic by utilities street works—which is dealt with in parts III and IV.
We are continuing a record level of expenditure on the trunk road network which, we are convinced, will bring great economic benefit. That public programme will run to about £6 billion for trunk roads in England over the next three years. That represents a 20 per cent. real increase over the past three years and will be concentrated on motorway widening and trunk road bypass schemes. The programme will involve widening most of the motorways in England and, with some 150 bypasses in the trunk road programme, it will bring relief to many towns and villages.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome in the north-east of England for the Government's plans to upgrade the Al to motorway status along its entire length? The northern region is the only part of the country which is not at present attached to the national motorway box. The Government's farsightedness in the matter has already gained them great praise in our part of the country.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. Upgrading the A1 is one example among many of the benefits of the public road programme—the trunk road programme for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is responsible.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although he is condemned by Opposition Members, especially by the hon. Member who looks after Berwick, for spending more money on roads, when they return to their constituencies they stress the need for additional roads? The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for more roads to Berwick.

Mr. Freeman: I thought that my hon. Friend was referring to members of the official Opposition, who are in a difficult position because some of their senior spokesmen are in favour of cutting the roads programme. But in their constituencies they are in favour of maintaining the road programme, particularly where bypasses are proposed.
The private sector is playing an increasing role and the Bill will provide it with a secure framework in which to do so. We envisage private toll roads playing an albeit minor role in total road construction, but as an addition to the public road programme, which will continue on the scale that I have just described.
Let me clarify the role that we envisage for the private sector. The Bill is not about privatisation. First, it is purely

about the provision of new roads and will leave the existing networks intact and free of tolls. I repeat the assurance given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that we have no intention of tolling the existing motorway and trunk road network.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware of the evidence given by banks and others to the Select Committee on Transport. Do I take it that the Minister also gives an absolute guarantee that, even where a new scheme is undertaken by private finance, no question of allowing tolling on existing roads will be discussed as a quid pro quo for providing finance?

Mr. Freeman: I give the hon. Lady that assurance.
Secondly, the Bill does not create private highway authorities. The private consortia who provide the finance and expertise to design, build and operate the new roads will work alongside existing highway authorities. In most cases, the highway authority will be the Secretary of State but local highway authorities will also be able to make use of the provisions in the Bill and the Government very much hope that they will do so. We are talking about not only national toll roads but toll roads encouraged and approved by highway authorities.
Existing highway authorities will retain their statutory powers and responsibilities, including those which relate to environmental assessment, although some of their operational functions will be exercised on their behalf by the concessionaires. In all cases, the highway authority will own the land on which the toll road is built.
Our proposals in the Bill closely follow the Green Paper "New Roads by New Means", which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) published in May 1989. I pay tribute to him for his farsightedness in pioneering this new initiative. I remind the House that we already have the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, built with private finance and to be tolled like the existing tunnel. The bridge is nearing completion and we fully expect it to be opened later this year. It will provide welcome relief to those using the M25 and those currently forced to use the tunnel. The bridge will double the capacity across the Thames.
The Severn Bridge Bill is before the House. It will permit the construction of a second Severn crossing, to be built with private finance and tolled, like the first tolled bridge, which was opened by Barbara Castle, as she then was, the Labour Transport Minister, in 1966. The Green Paper also inspired the competition for the Birmingham northern relief road.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proposals do not include altering the planning procedure? If my constituents wish to object to the route of the proposed orbital route, will their existing rights under planning law be preserved?

Mr. Freeman: I have not yet come to deal with the western orbital route, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State answered a question on it earlier today. I shall have something to say about it in a moment. But I confirm to my hon. Friend that his assumption is correct. Whether a private toll road or a public road is proposed, the planning procedures will be clear. If proposals are objected to, they will be dealt with by a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned


Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, acting in a quasi-judicial fashion, will make a judgment on the results of a public inqury. The inquiry will take into account environmental and many other factors. The interests of my hon. Friend's constituents are well protected.
The proposed Birmingham northern relief road will be a toll road which will run from Coleshill to Cannock, providing an alternative to spaghetti junction for those travelling north or south on the M6. We are evaluating three serious tenders. Preliminary proposals are also being studied for the Birmingham-Manchester corridor. We expect to announce a winning tender for the Birmingham northern relief road in late spring.
The Scottish Office is evaluating three tenders for a bridge to the Isle of Skye and there is also great interest in the possibility of a privately financed fast link between the M74 and M8 motorways in Scotland. More private finance competitions are in prospect. As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier today that he is seeking views on the idea of a private finance competition for the western orbital route in the west midlands. That route would join the Birmingham northern relief road at the M6 and run south to join the M5 close to its present intersection with the M42. It would provide the west midlands conurbation with almost two thirds of its orbital route. The remaining portion would be provided by the M42, which is a public untolled road.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: My hon. Friend will be aware that several hon. Members from the southern section of the western orbital route have reservations about the preferred route and its effect on the environment. Will he confirm that, although the road will no longer be sponsored by a Government Department and will effectively be sponsored by the private sector, people who are against the existing preferred options will he able to make representations prior to the public inquiry to either the successful tenderer or to the tenderers per se so that the preferred route can be altered in practice? When the public inquiry considers the route, will it take environmental factors into consideration just as such factors would be taken into consideration if the project had remained Government funded?

Mr. Freeman: As my hon. Friend represents the Wyre Forest constituency, I appreciate his concern. I confirm what he said at the end of his remarks. My hon. Friend knows that there is a preferred route for the western orbital route, but it has not yet gone to a public inquiry. We have decided that it is a candidate for private construction, with tolling. When the results of a competition, if such a competition is to be held, are known and a successful tenderer has been selected, it will be up to him, working with the Department of Transport, to prepare the draft toll and road orders which will be made available for public comment. The matter will then almost certainly go to public inquiry, in exactly the same way as the proposals for a public road—the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) laughs.

Mr. Peter Snape: rose——

Mr. Freeman: When I have answered my hon. Friend's question I shall be happy to give way to him. cannot understand his mirth. I am trying to deal with a very serious question that affects my hon. Friend's constituents.
A public inquiry is the right forum for considering all the environmental issues that my hon. Friend's constituents will wish to raise. It will provide them with the opportunity to argue for variations to the route. We expect the potential tenderers for the western orbital route to follow broadly but not slavishly the preferred route. If improvements can be made to mitigate the impact upon the environment, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be slow in drawing his concerns to the attention of the construction companies which are interested in tendering for the route.

Mr. Snape: I am sorry if my smiling countenance offended the Minister. When I listened to his reply to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), I was merely reflecting on the fact that if the paraphernalia and palaver that he has just outlined for the western orbital route were to take as long as the equivalent procedure for the Birmingham northern relief road, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest would probably by then be the Father of the House.

Mr. Freeman: Such a delay will not happen. I cannot predict who, in generations to come, will be the Father of the House but I can confidently tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason to believe that there will be delay in constructing the western orbital route. There is a preferred route. The next stage is to hold a public inquiry. One of the purposes of introducing the private sector is to encourage innovative ideas and to get it to do the job quickly. If a sensible route is accepted, I envisage that its construction will be as quick, as, if not quicker than, the construction of a public road.
The House may recall that in June 1990 the Department of Transport issued a consultation document inviting views on the suitability of six new possible candidates for privately financed roads. I was greatly encouraged by the response from over 50 interested parties. The front runner among the six proposed schemes is a new second crossing of the River Tamar in the Plymouth area. We are commissioning further studies into the viability and environmental impact of such a crossing and consulting local interests. Subject to the outcome, we propose to announce details of a competition.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of a second Tamar crossing —I remind him that the existing crossing is already tolled —can he say how his remarks relate to the study that is to be undertaken into the possibility of a second road on a new line linking Exeter with Plymouth? The two projects are interrelated and interdependent.

Mr. Freeman: Yes, they are related. That is why further studies are required. That does not invalidate the arguments in favour of a tolled second crossing, but it points us firmly in the direction of ensuring that the location of the crossing is considered in relation to any new road. I hope to visit Plymouth shortly. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) has suggested that it would be appropriate for me to examine the public transport infrastructure in the west country. When I do so, I shall confer with my hon. Friend in his constituency about the proposed road. Again the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is full of mirth.

Mr. Snape: I do not want the Minister to think that I am laughing at everything that he says. However, he was unable to see the expression on his hon. Friend's face when he volunteered to visit his hon. Friend's constituency.

Dame Janet Fookes: I am not sure to which hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was referring, but if it were to me I can assure the Minister that I am delighted that he is to visit the west country. We always welcome visits from Ministers to the west country and their recognition of the importance of that part of the country.

Mr. Snape: I am sorry to have got the Minister into trouble with his hon. Friends. May I make it plain that I was referring to his hon. Friend with the new and fetching hairdo, the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks).

Mr. Freeman: Of the overland schemes that we suggested, the route between the M25 and Chelmsford seems the most promising. The Department will continue to work on this scheme, with a view to a privately financed competition after a preferred route has been established.

Sir Robert McCrindle: As everyone else seems to be making constituency points, I see no reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, why I should not do the same. I am prepared to accept that there should be a privately financed toll road from Chelmsford to the M25, but a few miles down the M25 motorists will be required to pay a second toll if they want to go through the tunnel or, prospectively, over a bridge. How much research has been undertaken not into whether the payment of tolls on a particular stretch of road is acceptable—by implication we know that that is the case—but into whether it would be equally acceptable if motorists had to pay two tolls on a relatively short stretch of road?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend knows that the Dartford tunnel is already tolled. Before a tenderer put in his bid to the Department he would have to take into account, as was the case with the Birmingham northern relief road, the prospective demand by motorists for a particular toll road. When the competition is held for the M25 to Chelmsford corridor, the prospective tenderers will take into account the Dartford tunnel or Dartford bridge tolls and the likely demand for such a road.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that, in reaching the conclusion that the proposed motorway from Chelmsford to the M25 should be a candidate for a competition, the Department has not undertaken sufficient research to establish that the road is likely to be used to such an extent as to interest people in entering the competition?

Mr. Freeman: I apologise to my hon. Friend. He may not have heard my earlier remarks. I said that we have been consulting the industry for nine months about six prospective routes. Three of them were estuarial crossings; the other three were overland routes. Of the six, the two that seemed feasible, having consulted over 50 interested parties, were the Tamar crossing and the M25 to Chelmsford. That is why I am referring to them. It seems to us that there is prima facie evidence that they will work. Firm bids will be made only on the basis of a detailed traffic study.
The Bill will give those schemes a new impetus, by creating a new framework for authorising toll roads in much the same way as traditional trunk roads. I envisage, therefore, that the Birmingham northern relief road and the Skye bridge will be authorised in that way.
All those toll roads over land and water were either in the roads programme or under study for inclusion in that programme. They were all justified as serving the public interest. Including the Dartford and Severn bridge, the total programme amounts to over £1·5 billion.
The new procedure for authorising toll roads entails, first, competitive tendering for the provision of a road or bridge on a route or in a corridor nominated by the highway authority, national or local. The successful tenderer will be answered and the details of his proposal —apart from commercially confidential matters—will be made public. A concession agreement will be negotiated and signed and detailed draft road orders and toll orders will be prepared. They will be subject to a public inquiry, following which the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport will reach a decision, bearing in mind all relevant factors, just as for a public untolled road.
Before dealing with the street works and utilities side of the Bill, for which the Minister for Roads and Traffic has direct responsibility, I will deal with some remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is not in his place. Speaking for the Opposition in the debate on the Loyal Address, he gave eight objections to toll roads. I will deal with each because all eight, though succinct, were badly argued and reasoned.
He said, first, that sufficient money had already been raised from motorists and he did not understand why motorists should also pay a charge at the point of use. The Government are anxious to make the point that these are extra roads, additional to the roads programme, and that there will be a public toll-free alternative to those roads. By asking motorists to pay albeit an additional charge on their motoring costs, but at the point of use, they are given a clear alternative, in terms of overland routes, between paying the toll and perhaps enjoying a quicker journey and staying on the public road and not paying the toll.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Does the Minister have notes in his brief about getting rid of any tolls? I am thinking of the Mersey tunnel toll. Talks about whether that toll should exist have been going on for about seven years. Does the Minister have any notes along those lines?

Mr. Freeman: No. The straight answer is that there are no such proposals from the Department of Transport, to the extent that it is our responsibility, about that or, for that matter, about the Humber bridge.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East argued, secondly, that toll roads would cost more to build than public roads. There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Indeed, all the evidence points in the reverse direction. We would expect the private sector, using its skills and innovation and better project management skills, to complete a private sector road faster and with good value for money.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister seems to have been congratulating himself for some time on the way in which he has streamlined and improved not only the speed but the control of road building plans. If he and his


Department are in such good control of the speed at which contractors build roads and the general way in which they operate, how does he imagine that there will be an improvement on the part of wholly private operators? What magic formula will they adopt that the Minister does not already apply, or is the truth that he is not at present doing the job very well?

Mr. Freeman: The private sector will design the roads and then build them. That is not, and never has been, the case with public roads. There is a division of responsibility between highway authorities for designing and preparing road schemes and private contractors coming in to do the construction work. Here we are talking about designing, building, maintaining and operating.

Mr. Snape: What is the difference between the reasoning of the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), that all environmental considerations would be examined before the private sector went ahead and built a road, and what he said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), that the private sector expertise would result in roads being built even faster? Is he denigrating the expertise of his own highway people, formerly known as the road construction units, and the battery of civil servants without whom he rarely appears in the Chamber?

Mr. Freeman: I am baffled by the hon. Gentleman's logic. The public inquiry stage comes before the road is constructed. By bringing the private sector into various schemes, such as Dartford, the second Severn crossing, Birmingham northern and the western orbital, the private sector, using its skills and better project control and with its own funds on the line——

Mr. Snape: Better than whom?

Mr. Freeman: The public sector. A privately constructed road, in the judgment of the Government, will be completed as fast as, if not faster than, a public sector road, which is the reverse of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East argued.
That hon. Gentleman said, thirdly, that there would be greater delays. He referred to the Birmingham northern relief road, which was a special case, the western orbital route, the Tamar crossing and Chelmsford to the M25. There is no reason why there should be a greater delay in the completion of a privately tolled road than the comparator public road.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East argued, fourthly, that congestion on public roads would increase. Logic tells one that if one builds a road to help relieve congestion on a public road, those using both the new toll road and the public road will benefit.
His fifth argument was that it would presage two-tier road use. The principle of tolling is well established over many bridges in this country. The private sector company, the concessionaire, will set tolls at a rate that will attract custom. There will always be a public sector free alternative.
He argued, sixthly, that it would take 20 to 30 years to pay for a toll road. The Secretary of State will continue to own the land, as will be the case for local authority roads, and at the end the road will revert to the state. A Labour Government in the past supported the tolling of the Severn and Humber bridges with long payback periods.
The hon. Gentleman's seventh argument was that the road that it was relieving would have to be kept congested —"congested" was his word—to encourage business for the toll road. That is absolute nonsense. The public road will be properly maintained by the relevant highway authority and, I believe, will be less congested.
He argued, eighthly, that toll roads would ruin the green countryside. I answered that by pointing out that our proposals must be subject to public inquiry.
I come to the street works and utilities, and the Minister for Roads and Traffic will perhaps be better able to answer points on this aspect of the Bill when he replies. That portion of the Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland, although there is a separate section for Scotland. The principle of the Bill—I gather that there is widespread support on both sides of the House for the provisions that implement the Horne report—is to lay on highway authorities the responsibility for co-ordinating utilities, the statutory undertakers, and their planning for digging up the streets and, at the same time, to place on the utilities concerned responsibility not only for proceeding diligently and with all deliberate speed but with reinstating the road properly and then guaranteeing the quality of their work.

Mr. John Bowis: Perhaps the Minister will clarify the interpretation of clause 54. As he said, there is a widespread welcome for implementing the recommendations of the Horne report, on the reinstatement not only of the roads but also of the pavements by public utilities. London boroughs fear that the clause might exclude pavements. Ordinary human beings talk about roads and pavements, but the legislative terminologies are carriageways, highways and footways. Perhaps the Minister could reconcile those terms and assure us that pavements will have to be reinstated.

Mr. Freeman: We shall return to that matter in detail in Committee. I hope that I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. Clause 54 encompasses pavements and the public highway. The Bill intends to provide control in certain circumstances over pavement works. I hope that my hon. Friend and other London Members will be satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Minister look at devising some means of persuading authorities that normally have nothing to do with roads to get their heads together and co-operate so as to avoid the ludicrous situation which I shall describe? The electricity authority, the gas authority and the water authority all insisted that three separate trenches should be dug on a 20 m stretch of highway. Surely that is nonsense. Some of us pleaded with them to be sensible and to put all three services in one duct, but they said no, that each authority must have its own trench.

Mr. Freeman: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill's object is to make sure that the local authority, relying on the latest computer technology, keeps a register of proposed and existing street works that will ensure the co-ordination of the various utilities so that, one after the other, they do not all dig up the road.
Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have introduced an element of humour into the debate and perhaps I could conclude on a similar note.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I always like to share a good joke with my hon. Friend the Minister. Does he


accept that all highway authorities, the Department of Transport and the territorial departments and the local authorities, together with the utilities, should urgently seek to make temporary reinstatements to some of the trenches that were uncovered during the recent frost and bad weather? They pose a real danger, especially at night and to motor cyclists, and during the next two weeks it should be possible with some push to cover up some of those death traps. I know that that needs to be done before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's thoughts to the appropriate authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is beside me on the Front Bench. I have experienced some of the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has referred. I pay tribute to him for his work on the Home report. His early acceptance of that report presaged the Bill.
All hon. Members will recall the immortal words of Flanders and Swann which have been quoted many times. They run:
It was on a Monday morning that the gas man came to call.
I hope that we can soon add the words, "But only after checking with all his other mates, and by Friday he had made good and gone, job well and truly done."
In commending the Bill to the House I shall finally refer to the main and, I suspect, the controversial part of the Bill —the section on toll roads. Our toll road proposals mean more roads provision than would otherwise have been possible and those roads will probably be built quicker. All will be built with proper environmental safeguards and, where there is a monopoly, the tolls will be controlled. Where there is no monopoly and a public free highway alternative exists, tolls will be set at levels determined by the market. Those roads will provide benefits to their paying users and relieve congestion on the public roads. The Labour alternative is to deny that opportunity. The result of its policy is either fewer roads or higher taxation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Snape: As the Minister of State said, this is very much a two-stage Bill. Parts I and II provide for the construction and management of privately funded roads, and parts III and IV implement the recommendations of the Home review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. The first part is at best irrelevant and distracts from the steps that must be taken to tackle Britain's transport problems.
We believe that need is the proper justification for road provision and that privately funded roads that are designed to offer opportunities to construction companies and similar businesses must be properly scrutinised in the House to ensure that matters which the Government would regard as distractions are not set aside. What are these matters? They include countryside and environmental protection policies, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). They include interaction between land use, planning and transport, which were identified in the Government's recent White Paper on the environment but were not mentioned by the Minister in his speech.
Those concerns demand some answers before we go ahead with the projects that the Minister has outlined. What assessment has been made of the environmental impact of the first part of the Bill? What steps have been taken to identify and regulate any property development which will inevitably be associated with new road proposals and may be considered an inducement to construction companies to compete for such roads?
What details will the Minister make available to the House about special road proposals and how will such proposals be made available for public scrutiny? What consideration have the Government given to the conflict between the Government's current transport policy, in so far as it exists and was outlined by the Minister, and the need for countryside and environmental protection?
We are sceptical about the likely level of privately funded road building. Those of us with constituencies in the west midlands are aware of the long-standing saga of the Birmingham northern relief road. Despite the passage of many years, that road seems to be no more than a private sector twinkle in the weary and jaundiced eyes of successive Transport Ministers. The project has been touted round the private sector for years, but appears to be no nearer commencement.
Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), just before the debate started I received a Department of Transport press release which mentions private finance competition for the midlands western orbital route. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest spoke about some immediate concerns on that proposal and I did my best, inadequate though it probably was in the Minister's eyes, to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, given the saga of the Birmingham northern relief road, he did not have too much to worry about for some years.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest amply illustrated the concerns felt by many hon. Members about the environmental consequences of this piece of ideological nonsense. He pleaded with the Minister on behalf of himself and other hon. Members affected by the midlands western orbital route to be allowed to make representations to the developers. I am not sure whether the Minister agreed because he shrugged off his hon. Friend's plaintive cry with his customary sophistication. That shows the difficulties in which the Government will find themselves when they substitute private sector competition, such as it is, for a proper and reasonable transport policy. I commend to Conservative Members who have been unduly impressed by the Minister's oratory an in-depth look at the saga of the Birmingham northern relief road.
If there is a proven need for the two roads in the west midlands that the Minister mentioned, they should be built and paid for, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, out of the estimated £19 billion that the Treasury raises from transport taxes of one kind or another. That view is not held solely by the Labour party. Employers' organisations and organisations such as the British Road Federation Ltd., which are not normally known for left-wing bias and tendencies, take exactly the same view. If those roads were properly planned and resourced, the environmental and other factors that I mentioned would be properly considered. Even the Government, with their naive belief in the private sector cavalry galloping to their rescue, think that that would be a better alternative than the sort of gold-card, senior executive highway which they are trying to coerce the private sector into building.
Let us consider the history of private sector involvement in the Birmingham northern relief road. That road was formally included in the roads programme as long ago as 1980, although parts had been considered by the Department of Transport as far back as 1971. Orders for the scheme were published in 1987 and a public inquiry held in the summer and autumn of 1988, when there was little opposition. In November 1985, the dual-three road, the A446M, was costed in the roads programme at £140 million. In the most recent programme it was not costed.
At a public inquiry the Department argued that the road was essential for the relief of the M6 between junctions 4 and 10 and to allow maintenance on the midlands links viaduct to take place. Those hon. Members with constituencies in the west midlands need no reminder of the amount of time that maintenance has been taking place on the midlands links viaduct.
Construction of the road is expected to begin in 1991 and end by 1994. In May 1989, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), unexpectedly announced that no ministerial decision would be taken as he would invite the private sector to build and operate the road, but he said at the time that that would not delay the scheme.
The Department told potential developers that their route should broadly follow the original line. Once again I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is no longer in his place, because in view of the Department's attitude, there is not much consolation there for him regarding his environmental concerns. Pre-qualification bids were invited in late 1989 and early 1990. Four bids were received and were all deemed acceptable. Formal tenders were invited in spring 1990 and three were received from the Tarmac, Trafalgar House and Manufacturers Hanover consortia. According to the latest information, the Department will make the decision. Press speculation suggests that it will be between Tarmac and Trafalgar House.
The Minister said that the decision would be taken in the spring. That was elegantly put. It means that there has been a slippage, because we were recently told that the decision would be taken in March. I am not sure when spring starts in the Minister's eyes, but I have an idea that it does not start in March. There has already been a slight delay. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can be a little more precise, as none of us is sure when spring starts for the Minister of State.
That will not be the end of this long-drawn-out business; once the decision about allocation of contracts is taken, the Department will presumably have to renegotiate a contract with the developers because the original costings were made some years ago. I should be delighted for some confirmation of that from the Under-Secretary or whoever replies to the debate. I should also like to know whether it will be considered necessary to hold a further public inquiry, once a decision has been taken.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I know that what really concerns my hon. Friend is the stress and strain that will be placed on Trafalgar House by these methods. Perhaps I can reassure him that since it is doing extremely well out of its relationship with British Rail Engineering Ltd., in terms of the amount of money that it is borrowing from Trafalgar House, he should not put himself out too greatly.

Mr. Snape: I always acknowledge my hon. Friend's expertise in these matters. I am sure that the Minister will have heard what she said. I must confess that the future financial well-being of Trafalgar House was not uppermost in my mind when I mentioned it, but no doubt its involvement with BREL will enable it to generate enough capital out of job losses within that company to make a successful bid for this contract.
The Department of Transport should tell us how long the decision will take and how such roads fit in with policies that are supposedly designed to reduce the generation of carbon dioxide by the British transport sector. The Minister said that there will be roads for ordinary mortals and roads for executive types running from the same point A to the same point B, although not necessarily parallel. Surely the Government accept that the construction of duplicate roads will generate more traffic. Surely extra traffic generation will mean more carbon dioxide. I see that the hon. Gentleman at the back of the Conservative Benches is shaking his head. He and I have crossed swords on too many occasions. If he would like to stand up and tell me why he is shaking his head, I should be delighted to give way.

Mr. Simon Coombs: rose—

Mr. Snape: I was not looking at the hon. Member for Swindon, but I shall come back to him in a second; he should contain himself or go and lie down, as I shall give way to him in a moment. In so far as the environmental aspects of the Government's road-building policy exist, do they have any impact on the ranks of Conservative Members?

Mr. Simon Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case about the idea of having one road for the wealthy and one for the not-so-wealthy—people like himself and myself. Does he think that there might be a benefit in road safety terms if the wealthy Jaguar drivers, who exceed the speed limit, were on one road, leaving the other road for people such as ourselves?

Mr. Snape: It was predictable that someone would lob in that especially cheap jibe at some stage during the debate. I had taken little bets with my hon. Friends as to which Conservative Member would come out with it. The hon. Member for Swindon was not in the betting, but he has obviously come down to the same level as his hon. Friends. If any hon. Members in the House who cover a considerable number of miles in the course of parliamentary duties have never exceeded the speed limit, let them stand up and be counted. I would soon have to sit down. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Swindon would like to reply to that.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: rose——

Mr. Snape: There is always one, and I shall give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) if he wishes to intervene.

Mr. Arnold: I thought that the reference was to the Jaguar of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), not to the Jaguar belonging to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am getting a little envious. I think that we should leave Jaguars alone and get on with the debate.

Mr. Snape: I was going to ask if I might ride in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in view of your strictures, I had better not. However, there is not a better car. It is built in the west midlands and I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we will have less of the advertising.

Mr. Snape: Our party is not renowned for free commercials, so I shall leave it at that.
I shall return to the question whether privately funded roads are necessary. The Government will have to concede that, if privately funded roads are necessary, it is essential that the interests of people who may use them are properly protected. The Bill specifically refers to some issues which must be included in any concession agreement and during debates in the other place it was acknowledged that safety and maintenance and construction standards can be dealt with in such an agreement. Not only does that not go far enough, but the Government have so far refused to amend the Bill to reflect those and other concerns. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford will return to these important matters in Committee.
The Minister did not linger long on parts III and IV of the Bill. Opposition Members welcome the overhaul of the provisions of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. We especially approve the following proposals. We agree that the provision for local authority direct labour organisations to tender for utility work is fair and sensible and we hope that, having seen the common sense of that proposal, the Government will ensure in later stages of the Bill that some of their less enlightened Back-Benchers understand the reasoning behind it.
We agree with the duty' that is imposed on both highway authorities and utilities to ensure the better co-ordination of street works. As has already been said, few things are more annoying than the constant digging up of roads by various utilities. We are pleased about the reference in part IV to the needs of people with disabilities. We should like to know, however, how the Department expects the power in clause 70—to introduce charges for the occupation of road space—to be used. We understand that it will be treated merely as a reserve power. We do not want the clause to undermine the delicate balance of parts III and IV.
Finally, let me ask a few specific questions, particularly about tolls. For instance, how many schemes do the Government propose to introduce under part I, and where will those schemes be implemented? The Secretary of State referred to one or two, but, if only five or six are envisaged, do we really need the earlier parts of the Bill? Would not the schemes be better considered individually—or do the Government, in what I hope is the short time left to them, plan to introduce a countrywide system of toll roads?
The Labour party believes that toll roads will create a system of first-class and second-class roads—

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: Of course; I am delighted to be thus described.

Mrs. Hicks: I have listened carefully to what my honourable colleague has said. I am rather saddened by his negative approach to the transport system. Does he not realise that, if he opposes the introduction of the private

roads, he will cause further harm to the process of opening up the west midlands? Anyone who has sat in a car for some time on the M6 north of Birmingham knows about the congestion. I should have thought that he, as a fellow west midlands Member, would welcome the opportunity to introduce the private sector in an attempt to speed up the provision of a choice of routes. Business men in my constituency who will be affected by the western orbital route will be very disappointed by his small-minded approach.

Mr. Snape: Having been described first as the hon. Lady's hon. Friend and then as her honourable colleague, I am sorry that she has been so rude to me. I was trying to explain how her party's ideology had taken over its commitment, as a Government, to alleviate road congestion in the region that both she and I have the honour to represent.
I have been trying to show—obviously inadequately, as the hon. Lady has not understood—that the northern relief road proposals have been part of the Government's road programme since 1980. I shall say this fairly slowly. I hope that the hon. Lady understands that any further hawking of the proposals round the private sector and any further public inquiries, should they be necessary—we do not know whether they will be; so far the Government have not told us—will lead even more of our business men to sit fuming on the M6. If the hon. Lady will not take my sensible advice and travel by train—Jaguars notwithstanding, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am afraid that, thanks to the Government's ideology, she and the business men for whom she has so properly expressed concern will remain trapped in traffic jams for many more years while this futile ideological debate continues in the ranks of the Conservative party.
The Government amended the Bill at an early stage to allow tolls to be levied after the road had reverted to the public sector. Why? Will that be the norm, and is there some specific reason, apart from the ideological ones, for the making of the amendment in another place? Organisations such as the Automobile Association, the Freight Transport Association and the British Road Federation have expressed concern, fearing—I hope that this will interest the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks)—that private finance will be not an addition to, but a substitute for, Government money. I hope that the Minister will clarify that, for the benefit of those organisations as well as that of the Opposition.
Will tolls have to pay capital as well as maintenance costs? If so, will not that be prohibitively expensive, as well as causing road users enormous delays? What concessions are envisaged? Will there be tolls for cyclists and motor cyclists, as well as for lorries and cars? How will the toll level be assessed and who will be responsible for assessing it—the developer, the Department or a combination of the two? Will an upper limit to the price of tolls be imposed anywhere in the country? After all, we understand that a study at the North London polytechnic's business school forecast that a toll on the double decked M25—if the Government were daft enough to propose one—would amount to as much as £21 per journey, given a rate of 60,000 vehicles per day.
How extensively have the Government consulted the European Commission about the proposals in the early parts of the Bill? When other member states have introduced tolls, the United Kingdom has rightly claimed


that they would unfairly affect our road haulage industry, as hauliers would have to pay two levies—domestic licence fees and toll charges. Presumably the same point was made to other EC countries; if so, perhaps the Minister will tell us their reaction.
In industrialised countries, transport accounts for about 30 per cent. of total energy consumption. Within that 30 per cent., road transport alone accounts for a great deal. Transport is the fastest-growing cause of carbon dioxide emissions, and nearly 20 per cent. of all United Kingdom emissions are related to road transport.
According to figures from the Department, there are 140 million cars and 15 million goods vehicles in western Europe. The Department forecasts an increase in road traffic in this country of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. How and where do privately financed roads fit in with the Government's environmental thinking—a question that I have already asked, but one that I ask again in the context of the Department's own figures? Despite much argument in the other place, the Bill contains no provisions concerning its environmental effects or its relation to land use planning.
The Nature Conservancy Council estimates that up to 160 sites of special scientific interest are threatened by the current roads programme, as are five county sites of wildlife importance, two trust reserves, one national nature reserve and three local nature reserves. English Heritage estimates that the programme will have an impact on more than 800 known archaeological sites; the National Trust estimates that 32 of its areas will be affected.
Privately financed roads neither benefit the environment nor relieve congestion. Will not many cars and lorries simply prefer to continue to use the existing roads, rather than paying tolls? How will the Bill stimulate a modal shift to rail travel which, supposedly, is part of the Government's philosophy, as espoused by the new Secretary of State for Transport?
Opposition Members believe that the proposals are motivated more by ideology than by any attempt to solve Britain's transport crisis. In Committee we shall do our best to improve the Bill—although we believe that the earlier parts are largely beyond improvement, and the Labour Government who will be elected at the next general election will look again at all its proposals.

Mr. Peter Fry: Let me take up two points made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He seemed to suggest that the two midlands schemes should be financed from the taxation currently imposed on motorists and the motor industry. Does that represent a move towards hypothecation on the part of the Labour party? Alternatively, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what other parts of its policy Labour will jettison to fund the roads from the Exchequer. Perhaps he really meant that the roads should be built because taxes would have to rise to pay for them.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman refers to hypothecation. Labour's transport document "Moving Britain into the 1990s" contains the proposal—no doubt, in Conservative Members' eyes, Marxist-oriented—that large companies in major cities should be made to pay a 1 per cent. payroll tax, to be spent entirely on improving

public transport provision in those cities. We suggest that, to pay for that, companies should reduce the amount that they spend on company cars.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how the roads would be paid for. He was obviously not listening when I made it plain that, given that £19 billion is available, if the roads are essential, the money ought to be spent to pay for them.

Mr. Fry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. I would merely point out that, when we went to Grenoble to see the new public transport system, involving a levy on employers, we discovered to our interest that there were more car parking places in the centre of the city and more cars coming into the centre of the city than before the public transport system was built. Perhaps public transport systems do not always create the desired effect.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about pollution. Surely he would agree with me that cars that stand in long traffic jams create far more pollution than traffic flowing freely on inter-urban roads. Far from increasing pollution, the creation of inter-urban roads could do something to reduce it.
Both of the matters covered by the Bill have been of great interest to me as joint chairman, for the past 16 years, of the parliamentary road study group and as the senior Conservative on the Select Committee on Transport. As long ago as 1983, the Select Committee argued that the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 should be amended. Almost two years ago, in an Adjournment debate answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, then Minister for Public Transport, I asked for plans to allow further private financing of road building. At long last, we have a Bill before us. Although the Department has not exactly moved with the speed of light, we should warmly welcome the Bill. As always, one or two minor details will need to be examined in Committee, but in general the House should approve the Bill and hope that it will be enacted as soon as possible.
I found the comments made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East a little strange. The Labour party apparently feels so strongly about toll roads that it has not even bothered to whip its members and does not intend to divide the House. The hon. Gentleman and I both know that if the Labour party was really so strongly opposed to the Bill, it would have brought its members in to vote against it.

Mr. Snape: Senior Conservative or not, the hon. Gentleman can rarely resist making a cheap political point. I made it quite plain that the Labour party is strongly in favour of the second part of the Bill. No doubt had we whipped our members tonight, the hon. Gentleman would have pointed out how illogical it was to vote against something of which the Front-Bench spokeman had already said we were in favour. The hon. Gentleman's problem is that he does not stick to the script.

Mr. Fry: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I write my own script. I can only say that, if I have learnt cheap political tricks, it has been in many years of debate with him on transport matters.
Let me refer first to the second part of the Bill, which deals with street works. I do not think that we need say too much about that tonight. All of us have experienced frustration and irritation as a result of the constant digging-up of roads. I am reminded of an incident that


took place a few years ago. A hole was dug in the road in one of our major cities. It was surrounded by fencing and everybody went away. It was a week before anybody asked who had dug up the road and which authority was responsible. In fact, no one had been responsible; it was a practical joke. The problem has existed for many years and regulation is needed.
As I said, we shall have to consider one or two points in Committee, including the right to charge a statutory undertaker for his occupation of the road and questions concerning emergency work, and further work after substantial road works have been carried out. I hope that we shall defer to the Committee on all these matters. I hope that they can be dealt with satisfactorily and in the spirit of co-operation already shown by the joint utilities —the cable industry and the highway authorities. The proposals are long overdue. There should be a minimum of further argument about them and we should seek to ensure that they reach the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said, much more controversial are the two parts of the Bill dealing with the provision of new roads. There will be those—both in the House and outside it—who believe that we do not need any more new roads. They are perfectly entitled to their opinion, but I feel that they are misguided, for the reason spelt out clearly by the hon. Gentleman —the enormous increase in car ownership that will take place over the next 20 years. We already have the most congested main roads of any developed country in the world. With an influx of new traffic on the scale that has been forecast, our present network is in danger of becoming overloaded—even given the Government's far-sighted plans to improve the motorway system. The task of building sufficient new roads even partially to meet the new demand is clearly the Government's responsibility.
I do not want anyone to go away with the impression that I am advocating covering the countryside with concrete or asphalt. I believe, however, that successful inter-urban movement is the prerequisite for economic development and achievement. Some people say, "Put everything on the railway." Anyone who has examined that proposition knows perfectly well that if we double or treble what is being carried on British Rail—I would welcome such a move—it would still leave a tremendous amount of freight to be carried on our road network, and that is even if British Rail itself could cope with such an increase in demand. While I do not suggest that more and more money should simply be put into the road building programme—be it private or public—I believe that there will be an ongoing demand for road expenditure. That is why the Bill is important, as is the move towards securing more private finance.
Whatever our political views, we all accept that public resources will always be scarce and that public moneys will increasingly be needed for all kinds of transport infrastructure projects. Only recently, we read that British Rail needs—or has asked for—an extra £2 billion next year. We have learnt that the new light rail schemes that the Government are approving will be funded almost entirely from public funds. Only this week, London Underground announced that it would take seven or eight

years to bring about the improvements that are needed, and its chairman said that the company could not achieve that entirely without Government assistance. In addition to such projects are the many experiments needed to improve access to buses and to encourage more bus operations in our towns and cities. All those activities will take up a valuable part of our national resources.
The need for transport finance is becoming enormous. Surely, therefore, we should welcome any proposal that will add to our transport infrastructure and take some of the strain off public expenditure. The urban improvements that we need are on such a large scale that it is essential that we find any assistance that we can.
We must put the proposal for private road finance into context, however. The 1989–90 Select Committee report "Roads for the Future" said that private finance may make a welcome contribution but that it will not provide a solution to the fundamental problem. Among the evidence that we received before we reached that conclusion was that from the Bank of America, which pointed out that privately financed roads would make only a minor contribution. However, the Bank of America saw such roads playing a significant part in providing major thoroughfares. It is clear, therefore, that, although the proposal will help, it does not provide the whole answer. I do not think that the Government would claim that it does.
During that investigation, we also discovered that the construction industry still had many reservations. It felt that much still needed to be done to make its involvement in building roads more attractive. For its part, the Select Committee felt that the time between conception of a road and its completion was still far too long. Even with the Government's welcome new proposals on planning and compensation, the period will still be too long.
In addition, there is the problem that the cost of preparing and planning a road project is very high. Figures given to the Select Committee showed that about 5 or 6 per cent. of the total cost of a new road project could be taken up purely in planning and preparation. If a concern is uncertain whether it will win a contract, few construction groups will want to put up or borrow large amounts of money when it will be a very long time—even if the project is successful—before there is a return.
I think that I know what the Government's response to that point will be. They will argue that the schemes that they have put forward have attracted many interested parties. However, it is worth considering the Select Committee's report and another quotation from the Bank of America:
Investors need to keep a balanced portfolio of assets and this is not possible if the Government releases relatively few schemes at a time as at present. The private sector money would show more interest if and when a relatively large number of schemes is available on the market.
I support the Bill, but I believe that more must be done to attract more private sector involvement because I desperately believe that we must spend more on transport as a whole.
One of my reservations about the success of the current proposals is fairly simple: although there are a number of obvious candidates for private money, at the moment that list is not too extensive. The Select Committee considered that problem. We took up the suggestion that more joint funding between the public and private sectors was desirable. We felt that that was particularly appropriate


where there would be large benefits to the public which would not be extracted in the form of revenue by the promoter—for example, an increase in land values or congestion relief for the public road network.
The Select Committee concluded that, properly set up, there was no reason to suppose that joint funding ventures would involve Government subsidies or even Government guarantees. We thought that such schemes were a sensible way of sharing the risks and maintaining the benefits of private sector involvement.
The Government have taken their time to promote many more joint fundings, particularly on a national scale. For a number of years there was an insistence on either totally public or totally private. The most recent example involved the question how to finance the channel rail link entirely within the private sector. However, I believe that there are some encouraging signs. The climate is changing and in that respect I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and to his work in public transport. He has been willing to involve the Government in schemes to improve transport efficiency. I want particularly to pay tribute to his attitude towards sensible light rail schemes and to his approval of schemes that meet the national criteria. However, there are many schemes available, but insufficient money to meet them. Therefore, the more that we can do through joint funding or by other means to attract more private money, the better.
Already many of our local roads have been considered suitable for developer contributions. Although that is welcome, there are problems. For example, it often takes some time to put a scheme together and to reconcile the views and needs of the local community, the local authority and those who want to take advantage of the development. Schemes are being delayed because of a lack of sufficient public money in the form of the local authority contribution and also because the developers must be convinced that the scheme will be to their best advantage.
There are two schemes in my constituency that have a high priority in terms of traffic flows and they are necessary on environmental grounds. One of them, the Wellingborough eastern relief road, which would complete the town ring road and help hundreds of my constituents, has had to be dropped from the county council's transport policy plan because the council felt that it did not have sufficient funds to build it purely as a county road. Therefore, the building of the road has been delayed until developers can fund part of it. A similar problem applies, although to a lesser extent, to the other priority scheme, the Isham bypass.
All that seems to show that joint funding can make a contribution and has much to offer, although the present circumstances need to be improved. One of my minor criticisms of the Bill is that it does not address that problem. I believe that more could and should be done to build more schemes through joint funding arrangements.
Another concern is land use. In recent years, it has been fashionable to develop out-of-town shopping and to open up new land that was previously not used for commercial purposes. That has happened frequently because town centres have become congested. This is not the occasion to debate whether that is desirable, but there is no doubt that the right kind of road and planning policies could cause more developers to be interested in subsidising or paying for roads if they felt that the scheme opened up new land.
The Bill tends to relate to access on to the road from nearby land. If that is to be the criterion, there is a danger that many firms will want access to that private road. Too many accesses to a road could constitute a road safety problem. However, a limited access to the road, opening up new land away from but adjacent to it, could create more interest without creating road safety problems.
It must be possible to allow a promoter to benefit from a development that would not be acceptable without the new road but would be acceptable with it. Such land would then have an increased value and a planning gain. If it was taken up by the promoter of the road and sold later when the road was completed, the proceeds from that extra gain could well form a substantial part of the cost of the whole venture.
The Bill's proposals are good, but I suspect that their impact will be more limited than the Government might like. I have tried to describe further steps which must be taken to encourage more private ventures and I hope that those schemes will come forward.
For a long time I have felt strongly that additionality was an essential part of the Government's proposals in relation to private financing of roads. Indeed, I said that two years ago in an Adjournment debate. I believed that we must be sure that we were not merely saving on schemes that the Government would otherwise produce themselves.
I have been impressed over the past two or three years by the enormous demand for transport investment in many realms of activity, and I have become aware that we cannot solve all our traffic problems simply by building roads. We must consider new light rail systems, new bus systems and park-and-ride. Provided that the money saved by building private roads is reinvested in transport infrastructure as a whole, my opposition to no additionality would be much diminished. We face a serious future unless we put more money into the transport infrastructure. The Bill must be supported because, whether we are road, rail, pipeline or water advocates, it will give the Government the opportunity to spend more money on transport as a result of the schemes.
For far too long, transport has been the Cinderella subject in national debate and in political priorities. That is the result of two main factors. First, we discovered that personal services were more important. One tends to win or lose more votes on personal services such as health and education. Secondly, in a local authority that is confronted with a problem, the first item to be cut is capital expenditure. That is true of national and local government.
In the past few years, there has been increasing public awareness of public transport problems and increasing public demand for the Government to attend to them. That increasing public awareness is the result of two factors—increasing affluence and the demand for more mobility, and the neglect of transport investment over the past 30 or 40 years.
Public financing will not solve all the problems of congestion, but it can help to ease them. It may not build many more new roads, but it will build some. It will not relieve the Government of their responsibility for public sector finance, but it can help to divert resources to where they are desperately needed. For those reasons, the Bill deserves support.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Unlike the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), I do not like the Bill at all. I do not like parts I, II, III or IV. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am astonished that the Opposition will not divide the House tonight. I wish that they would.
Parts I and II expand the role of toll roads and bridges. It would be a progressive policy to abolish tolls on some roads. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) asked about the Mersey tunnel and the Humberside bridge. At one time, it was the policy of all parties to get rid of the ancient system of tolls on roads and to make all roads the Queen's highways and free to all. Parts III and IV replace the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, but they have more holes in them than they seek to prevent in the roads themselves. In parts I and II, the Government wish, in a doctrinaire way, to abrogate their responsibility for public spending and to shift it to tolls, to the private sector and to the motorist. They are taking us back, kicking and screaming, to the Turnpike Acts of the eighteenth century, under which people paid to go along a stretch of road. The Bill is worse than that: at least under the Turnpike Acts the people responsible for roads were elected or appointed to consider local and national needs and to provide proper roads. They were not entrepreneurs who sought to make a profit from the roads, which is what parts I and II seek to allow.
The Government claim that the Bill will provide additional expenditure for public roads. That may be so, but there is always a grave risk under any Government, and especially under this Government, that what is intended to be additional to becomes a substitute for public expenditure on public roads. It is a good cop-out for the Government not to spend more money on roads by introducing toll roads and getting private industry to build roads and bridges.
Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and like most hon. Members and their constituents, I am a motorist. I am becoming sick of the way that motorists are kicked about —by the Conservatives and by my party. I pay road tax of £100 a year. The intention of the road fund licence was to build roads for motorists. A vast amount of the money that goes into the Treasury is not spent on building roads but goes into the general maw of the Treasury. As a motorist with a private car, I pay very little compared to the road haulier or bus operator. Where does that money go? It should provide public roads. Each time that I buy a gallon of petrol, I pay a huge duty. Every gallon that goes into my tank contributes to the Government's costs of building an infrastructure that I expect as a return for the tax that I pay.
Like other hon. Members, I pay income tax. Part of that tax should provide the essential infrastructure, namely, a proper transport system. If I sell a property and make a profit, I may pay capital gains tax. Again, that goes to a Government who are seeking to opt out of their duty to provide a transport system. I also pay the poll tax. Like many hon. Members, I pay twice, because I pay in London and in my constituency. Part of that tax goes to the county council or to the roads authority for lighting and for improving and maintaining the highways.
In addition to paying those taxes, motorists would have to pay, as a result of the Bill, for the privilege of traveling

along some roads, but the Government should provide those roads from the taxes already being paid by the motorists.
That is why I object bitterly to the provisions of parts I and II. I do not think that they will work. Contractors and builders will not jump at the chance to provide capital investment in a sector where it will be a long time before they see any capital return. The Bill is a doctrinaire attempt by the Government to deal with a real problem, and I think that it will fail.
Many hon. Members—including the Minister—gave constituency examples. I shall give one because it is apposite, although I do not like to use such examples on Second Reading. My constituency is divided by the River Mersey—Runcorn is to the south and Widnes to the north. Part of Cheshire is to the north and part is to the south. The first bridge over the River Mersey is in Halton. It is the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, which is unbelievably, obscenely congested many times during the day. People used to cross the river by ferry. Hon. Members may have heard the famous recitation of the late, great Stanley Holloway, which was called "Tuppence per person per trip". That referred to the Runcorn ferry in my constituency. If we have a toll road, as the Government suggest, it will not be tuppence per person per trip. Goodness knows what sum will be paid in tolls.
We then had a transporter bridge to replace the ferry. Again, it was a toll bridge, but the toll was not for a highway, but for a bridge. The transporter bridge was one of only three in the country, and it carried vehicles across the river and the Manchester ship canal.
A new bridge was built in 1963 which has two lanes each way. That bridge is now desperately congested, so there is a desperate need for a second crossing of the river. I wrote to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), about a second crossing, and he replied that the Government were "considering" a second crossing. He said that they were considering a toll bridge across the River Mersey which would not be near the present bridge, but which would connect Runcorn with Speke airport. It would, therefore, be linked with a dubious scheme by British Aerospace to make Speke airport a hub-and-spoke airport. As two such schemes are being considered at the same time, I do not believe that it would be a viable venture. The toll bridge would take the road over the widest part of the estuary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will realise.
As there is an existing bridge, it is unlikely that people will pay to go over a toll bridge. Haulage firms will not do so. We are told constantly by haulage firms in our constituencies how strapped for cash they are, so they will not add to the costs by going over what could be an expensive toll bridge. The bridge will not relieve congestion on the existing bridge. We need two public bridges—two roads. One should go in one direction and the other in the other direction. That would be the sensible solution. The Widnes Weekly News and the Runcorn Weekly News are running a campaign on the desperate need for a second bridge. The local chamber of commerce, Halton district council, Cheshire county council and everyone concerned with transport in the area agree that the idea of a toll bridge to link Runcorn to Speke is one of the most ludicrous ideas imaginable. The doctrinaire


policies of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere and the policies in the Bill have led the Government to propose that for an area that desperately needs a solution.
Crossing a river is the highest point of expenditure when building a road. Building a road is expensive, but building a bridge is far more expensive. In view of the cost to the construction firm that undertook the private work on the bridge, if it was to get a decent return on its capital, as it would be entitled to do, the tolls for going over the bridge would be desperately high. The Bill seeks to lead us down that path. It will not work, and it is not desirable. In Scotland, in Northern Ireland, in Wales and in England, the Queen's highways should be free to those who pay taxes, as we all do, to a Government who are responsible for building highways.
Parts III and IV are designed to replace the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, which needs replacing because it is over 40 years old. In the very old days—the days of smaller units—we did not need such legislation because a local authority, such as my borough of Widnes, provided water, gas and sewerage services. One man was responsible for public lighting, for water supplies and for gas engineering. He would consult with himself or he would go to the highways engineer and say, "We are going to dig up such and such a street. Is that all right?"
The 1950 Act was introduced as a result of the fact that many local services, such as gas and electricity, had been taken away from local authorities. People had to deal with a nationalised body for public utilities and with a local authority, which made it necessary for new legislation. The public utilities have now ceased to be public; they are private utilities, whether water, sewerage services, gas or telephones. There is a need for another Act on that basis alone.
A golden opportunity has been missed in parts III and IV. It is sometimes essential for utilities, such as telephones, gas, electricity, sewerage and water, to go under the streets. I admit that. A vivid example came in the recent terrible war in Iraq, when we rightly bombed the bridges to stop transport going in and out of Kuwait. In bombing the bridges, we destroyed not only the telecommunications services which were carried along them but the water supply and sometimes the sewage pipes. That brought home to people a fact that we do not usually think about—that streets, roads and bridges carry not only traffic, but essential modern services. I hope that there are not terrible problems in Iraq from plague and from disease as a result of the lack of water supply and proper sewerage systems. What has happened in Iraq brings home the fact that streets and roads are not only for traffic.
Why is there not a far more positive approach in the Bill towards the use of highways for public utilities services? Why is there not a specific requirement for new roads, whether toll roads or not, in towns and in development areas around towns that services should go under the grass verge between the pavement and the road itself? That would cause the minimum disruption to traffic and to pedestrians. There are verges in almost all new developments. Why not put all services there? Pneumatic drills would not be needed for digging and there would be no disruption to pedestrians or to traffic. When services are reinstated or when new systems are being installed, it should be possible to provide a verge for the services to go under.
We should accept the fact that roads are not only for traffic, but for other services and we should plan for that. I should have liked the Bill to require local authorities, planning authorities and public utilities to use verges to prevent disruption from digging up roads. There should be separate facilities for public utilities. However, the Bill perpetuates the old system as utilities can still go under roads. The initial engineering may be cheaper, but in the long term, in view of the capital cost to the public utilities and the disruption to the public, it would be cheaper to use a special conduit along the highway.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) raised with the Minister the pertinent question of reinstatement. The Minister did not answer him but quoted clause 54. When I checked that clause, I found that it had nothing to do with reinstatement. Perhaps the Minister quoted the wrong clause. I then looked at the provisions on reinstatement and found that the word "pavement" was not there. I looked through the definitions, but the word was not there either. The hon. Member for Battersea is clearly on to a good point.
When I practised as a solicitor 20 years ago, I dealt with many cases of people who fell over on roads, usually as a result of inadequate reinstatement. Unfortunately, such people are usually old, frail, disabled, or blind.
A reinstatement may look all right to the street authority just after it has been done, but two weeks later it may sink and cause poor old souls to fall down. Moreover, there is not necessarily a follow-up. The Bill does not provide that local street authorities must ensure that the reinstatement is perfectly carried out and maintained. The utilities will simply say that the work is temporary and that they will correct it later, but they often leave it for months or even years. Road reinstatements may cause great danger to motor cyclists, who may be thrown off their machines, or to cyclists, who may be thrown over their handlebars. They are also dangerous to pedestrians, particularly old and disabled people, who may fall and injure themselves, and those in wheelchairs.
The matter is important to the public and the Bill should deal with it because there will probably not be another such Bill for 40 years. I hope that the Minister will consider my arguments sympathetically in Committee, as well as those made by the hon. Member for Battersea, who clearly also regards the matter as important.
I expect that most other hon. Members will have received some material over the weekend from the National Joint Utilities group, which is a consortium of people who dig up roads and provide important services. The material consisted of some special pleading, but also raised two important matters. The first was about clause 48, which deals with emergencies. An emergency is an unexpected or unforeseen event, and public utilities must move quickly to deal with it. I know that the Bill provides for that to a degree, and provides that less time can be given to the street authority than it would otherwise have, but sometimes a repair must be carried out immediately as the emergency might be a matter of life or death. People may have to make enormous insurance claims for food that is ruined as a result of a loss of electricity supply to their freezers for more than 24 hours. That may seem trivial to the Government, but it is important to electricity users. Indeed, in a sense, it is just as important to them as using the street. The electricity service must repair the supply as a matter of urgency.
I do not understand why the Government have included such a provision. The matter was raised in another place. I understand that the Government want to be tight about it because they do not want roads to be dug up unnecessarily. There is much mythology about public authorities digging up roads unnecessarily and they are sometimes a little careless, but, on the whole, the work is co-ordinated. Unlike under the 1950 Act, if no emergency has occurred, the local authority could be prosecuted in the criminal courts for needlessly digging up the road. The street authority has such a protection. Will the Minister consider my fair argument about emergency provisions?
The National Joint Utilities group also raised the problem of clause 91, which deals with offences and penalties. Under the 1950 Act, only the highway authority could prosecute the public utility for digging up the road, whereas, under the Bill, any person can do so. That may appear to increase individuals' access to justice, but the Government should be careful. A vindictive, litigious person who wants to stick his knife in the gas or electricity board will be given a glorious opportunity to involve himself in spending enormous sums of money by taking the case to court simply out of spite. I shall not mention names, but I know a shopkeeper in my constituency who constantly complains to me that every public utility seems to dig up the road outside his shop. I am convinced that, with clause 91, he will be hotfooting to court week after week whenever someone digs up the road near him. The clause will also cause increased expenditure for the public utilities, which will eventually be passed on to ordinary people in their bills.
The Government should think again. Perhaps the provision could be expanded beyond allowing the highway authority to take cases to court to include other bodies but not any person. That takes it much too far.
As I said at the outset, I do not like the Bill. It is a cop-out for the Government, who seek to provide for private sector roads instead of what we are used to— transport services. I do not like the slipshod way in which the Public Utilities Street Works Act is being replaced. I should have loved to have been able to vote against the Bill because of those deficiencies, but, surprisingly, shall not have the opportunity to do so. I shall not raise a lone voice against it. However, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the Bill is imperfect and that there is much to be done. They have a golden opportunity to put things right, especially with regard to street works.

Mr. David Evennett: Following the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), which is always an experience, I can neither agree with his views on the Bill, nor with his showbiz example of Stanley Holloway. However, nor could I follow my hon. Friend the Minister's remark about Flanders and Swann. I grew up in the 1960s and could not think of anyone suitable from among my records of the Beatles and Dusty Springfield to quote in my speech.
I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister on his robust speech this afternoon and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on taking a firm grasp on the problem of transport and roads during their past few months in office. For the first time, my constituents,

who suffer badly from poor British Rail services and inadequate roads in and around Greater London, feel that the Secretary of State and his colleagues understand their problems and concerns. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can do for roads in Greater London what he undoubtedly did so successfully for the people of Scotland in the road building programme in the past few years, my constituents will be delighted.
The roads in our country today are totally inadequate for the needs of the modern age. On excellent roads such as the A2, which goes through my borough of Bexley, constant repair work makes the road much less effective than it should be.
I am well aware that this debate does not cover road maintenance repairs to the A2, which have caused us to suffer so regularly in the past year or so. However, it takes note of the need for a higher quality road network than we have at present. I appreciate that tolls are not always popular, at least in general terms, and tolls for crossings such as the Dartford tunnel hold up traffic and cause some delays—[Interruption.]

Mrs. Dunwoody: Pay attention. The hon. Gentleman is being funny.

Mr. Evennett: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady, who will no doubt have an opportunity to make her own speech, would give me a chance to develop my theme.
Elsewhere in the developed world, toll roads are a way of life. My constituents warmly welcome the building of the Dartford bridge and look forward to its opening later this year. The fact that a public sector alternative exists in the Blackwall tunnel and, I hope, in the not-too-distant future, an east London river crossing, means that there will be increased choice for motorists who need to cross the Thames in south-east London. Motorists have the choice of paying a toll at the Dartford tunnel and, subsequently, with the addition of the bridge, making an easier crossing, or travelling further, to the public sector road which has no toll, and crossing at Blackwall. The second option involves a substantially longer journey, but at least motorists have a choice. As I am sure the Minister will agree, Conservatives believe in choice. As we have heard from speeches this afternoon, the Labour party always wants to deny choice to the people of this country. Conservatives passionately believe that there should be alternatives and choice.
It is easy for all of us to say that we would like more money spent on absolutely every aspect of public sector development, whether in the health service, education or transport. But Conservatives are realistic and know that there is a limited amount of money for the hard-pressed taxpayer to put into the public domain to spend on desirable but often expensive developments.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely correct that any additional money from the transport budget should go to the railway network. Network SouthEast in my district is a poor railway system. However, the investment that the Government have made is beginning to work its way through—it certainly needs to because the hard-pressed commuters in my district are tired of a second-rate service.
This country's road network also needs to be developed, in particular the roads round London, which are poor and inadequate. Therefore, I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the public


sector road programme will be unaffected by the Bill. The Government are endeavouring to improve and increase the opportunities for road development, without any extra cost to the taxpayer. Of course, we do not want our countryside to be ruined by building more and more roads and developing a concrete jungle, but I believe that there is a growing demand for road development.
The motorist is never supported, but always criticised, and condemned to a second or third-rate service, by the Labour party. But the hard-pressed motorist deserves a better deal. The Bill offers him an improvement in his driving opportunities by providing toll roads in some parts of the country. It is no good to use the green ticket and merely say that it is better to build fewer roads when we have congested roads, bumper-to-bumper cars, emissions from cars that are hardly moving and bad-tempered drivers being made to suffer. We need a developing road network. Therefore, I welcome the first part of the Bill and take issue with Opposition speakers who offered no alternative to road development.
The Opposition have merely said that they want more and more money paid into the public transport system —the railways and the underground. We would all like that, but for many people in parts of the country such as mine there is no underground network system. Roads are vital for people to get from north-east and south-east London to East Anglia because the only means of transport—short of coming into London and transferring to another public transport system, which would take much longer—is the car. There is no other choice. Therefore, I welcome the first section of the Bill, although it contains issues that need clarification. Perhaps those matters can be dealt with in Committee. In principle, I welcome the initiative taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his departmental team and look forward to an improving road system that will be in the interests of the motorist.
I shall concentrate on the second half of the Bill, which I also welcome. I believe that it will go a long way towards relieving existing problems associated with the repair work of our roads. The extent to which street works create traffic snarl-ups should not be under-estimated. That is especially true of prolonged work or where the same road is dug up by one statutory undertaker after another. Those problems occur in my constituency, in districts such as Crayford in London and in other major conurbations. Therefore, I shall concentrate my comments on the second half of the Bill, which deals with the control of street works in England and Wales.
The present law, which has been discussed—the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950—is long overdue for reform. Times and traffic conditions have changed drastically in the 40 or so years since the legislation was enacted. There is now four times as much traffic on the roads as there was in the 1950s and holes are dug in the roads by more service providers than ever before. Some of those providers, for example, cable television operators, did not exist when the present law was passed.
Today's heavy use of roads means that traffic often has to be disrupted simply for carriageway repairs—an issue that I have raised in the House many times in connection with the A2 trunk road and other major roads serving my constituency. If we are to limit the disruption and congestion caused by road works, it is essential that work

—other than carriageway repairs—such as street works carried out by statutory undertakers should be properly regulated by up-to-date legislation.
The Bill, which implements the changes recommended in the Home report, will introduce important changes that will lead to fewer holes being dug in our roads, street works being undertaken in a safer and more controlled manner and reinstatement work being carried out swiftly and to a higher standard—we should aspire to higher standards. We all know that many street works have been substandard, with unattractive and potentially hazardous results. I am sure that we have all witnessed the spectacle of the same road being endlessly dug up and refilled by a succession of utility companies. The Bill's powers, enabling local authorities to co-ordinate and control street works, will, I hope, bring to an end the farce of one company digging up what another filled in the day before.
Another feature of the Bill that I am sure will be widely welcomed, not least by the statutory undertakers, is the right for undertakers to carry out permanent reinstatement. Disputes over the reinstatement costs charged by local authorities are all too frequent and are probably the main cause of disputes between statutory undertakers and local authorities. The fact that utility companies cannot carry out permanent reinstatement also leaves roads in disrepair. Temporary repairs often leave humps or holes in the road for long periods before permanent work is carried out, which creates unnecessary hazards for road users, particularly cyclists.
There is no logical reason why utility companies should not carry out the work, provided that it meets the appropriate standards. The change proposed under the Bill is clearly sensible.
One issue relating to street works that is regularly raised by my constituents is safety—the adequate lighting and guarding of street works. It is essential to do everything possible to help eliminate the hazards that street works create for pedestrians, particularly those who are blind or have impaired vision. It is not feasible to include detailed safety requirements in primary legislation. Utility companies use various methods and the safety requirements of a static excavation, where water mains are under repair, will differ from those used for the rolling trench techniques used by pipe and cable layers.
I am pleased that the Bill provides for codes of practice on safety. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that there is adequate consultation on safety requirements, particularly with representatives of disabled groups? Will he ensure that the codes of practice are published as soon as possible after the legislation is enacted?
The Bill contains three issues that worry me. I agree with the issues in principle and wholeheartedly support them, but have doubts about their practical operation and application. The Second Reading debate is not the place to consider clauses in detail and I am sure that such matters will be fully addressed in Committee. However, I shall briefly outline my concerns to my hon. Friend the Minister.
The first matter about which I am concerned is the limited definition of emergency works. The aim of the Bill, rightly, is to reduce the congestion caused by street works. Therefore, it is sensible to limit exceptions by tightly defining what constitutes an emergency. However, the present definition, which limits emergency works to those required to stop or prevent circumstances likely to cause danger, goes too far. Clearly, escaping gas is a danger, but


is it dangerous for a home to have no water, or for a family with young children to have no electricity to heat their home in winter, or for someone who is housebound or disabled to have no telephone? As the Bill places the burden of proof on the person carrying out the work to show, in any proceedings, that an emergency existed, why is the definition so tight? I urge my hon. Friend to look more carefully at this issue during proceedings in the Standing Committee, on which I hope to serve with him.
The second matter about which I am concerned is payment for occupying a road. Again, I understand the idea behind the principle. The logic of discouraging unnecessary street works and of ensuring that any works that are carried out are completed rapidly is clear, but I believe that this will be a bureaucratic nightmare, which could achieve little. Utility companies are not in business to disrupt supplies or to tie up plant, personnel or contractors any longer than necessary. There would be no commercial sense in doing so. My concern is that if charges are made for occupying a road, corners will be cut for the sake of meeting deadlines and that contractors will do work to minimum standards, with a view to limiting the period of occupation. The danger is that the utility company will have to dig up the road a short time later to carry out emergency work. At the end of the day, any additional cost will simply be passed to the customer and little, other than higher bills for the consumer, will have been achieved.
The third issue that concerns me is the power given to authorities to order work to be carried out at other than normal times to avoid serious disruption to traffic. What I am concerned about is that the only thing to be taken into consideration will be the effect on traffic and that no regard will be paid to the effect on local residents. I am concerned about how this provision will operate in practice. Let me give an example of the problems that could arise. In my constituency, serious problems are caused by commuters who park on roads near railway stations—particularly those at Crayford and Belvedere. Many of those commuters are not local people; they drive considerable distances from outlying parts of Kent. As the Minister will appreciate, the congestion caused is a source of considerable annoyance to local residents. The volume of parked cars would make any work carried out during the day a serious disruption to traffic.
Of course, the streets authority could order that such work be done in the evenings—say, after 9 o'clock. If such an order were given, there would be no traffic disruption, but local residents would be far from pleased. It may not be the intention, but my reading of the Bill suggests that that is a possibility. If works are carried out at other than normal working times—particularly on evenings or at weekends—there will be increased cost arising from overtime and unsocial hours payments, as well as disruption for residents. The additional cost will, of course, be passed on to the consumer.
However, these are issues that can be debated at some length in Committee. At that stage, I hope, the Minister will be able to allay my fears. In the context of what the Government are endeavouring to do, they are minor issues. This is a good Bill. It arises from a vision of a better future for the motorist. Toll roads will provide a choice,

and the problems of motorists and pedestrians that arise from the constant digging up of roads, particularly in suburban and urban areas, will be overcome.
The need to control and co-ordinate street works has been recognised, as has the need for the long-overdue reform of outdated legislation. I am confident that road users—drivers, cyclists and pedestrians—will see an improvement in the state of our roads as a consequence of the Bill. Transport is one of the major issues of the modern age. In saying that, I refer not just to public transport but to transport in all its aspects. That being the case, toll roads are a way forward, although I do not say that they are the only solution. I was grateful to hear the Minister say that the Government will continue to provide new roads and to develop and improve existing roads, but the toll roads will help with areas of great need that have not so far been addressed.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: This is the second transport Bill to come before the House in a very short time. It could easily have been divided into two Bills. If it were so divided, we should find that one Bill would get full and wide support, while the other would receive rather less of a welcome. As in the case of-other road traffic legislation, I admire the Government's sleight of hand.
Having said that, I must declare that I am not in complete opposition to any part of the Bill. One could make an argument against the principle of private profit from toll road users, but it is not one that I intend to put forth today. Nor, indeed, is it an argument that would necessarily have my full backing. I realise that what I have just said may be seen as somewhat ambiguous, but it could be said by many hon. Members. I intend to restrict my remarks to the anxiety that I and many others have over the environmental consequences of private financing for public roads.
Ministers in both Houses have assured us that the environmental appraisal for private roads will be no less rigorous than that for publicly funded ones. That causes me great anxiety. I have never viewed the Department of Transport as a great friend of the earth, despite the wonderful defence of its policy since the second world war that was put forward by the Minister of State during the Third Reading debate in another place. It is not difficult to point to instances in which specific environmental concerns were overruled because the solution was considered to be too expensive. Twyford Down is a case in point. In that instance, it was considered that the environmental benefits and the protection of ancient woodlands that would be achieved by tunnelling would not justify the extra public expense. What chance is there of environmental considerations being given greater emphasis when private profit and responsibility to shareholders are the paramount concern?
My main objection, though, is the general lack of an overall strategy on the part of the Department of Transport. Red routes and, now, toll roads are examples of the Government's piecemeal approach to transport problems and are typical of the Department's longstanding preference for roads and private cars over other modes of transport. From comments made by Ministers in both Houses, it is obvious that the Government have a habit of confusing strategy with planning.
When I plead for an overall strategy, I am not asking for centralised planning. Any planning can be done at regional or local level. What I am asking the Government to do is to lead the way and to set an example by stating broad but clear objectives, and by providing the incentives, and where necessary the funding, to ensure that Britain has national, regional and local transport networks that are adequate to meet the needs of the 21st century. I want some sign that the Government recognise the environmental and social advantages, as well as the economic advantages, of good transport systems.
The introduction of toll roads does not reassure me. It is generally accepted that the building of new roads will merely encourage more people to use cars. Traffic forecasts published in 1989 indicated a growth in traffic ranging from 40 to 69 per cent. between 1988 and 2006, and from 100 to 200 per cent. by 2026. It is my contention that this level of growth cannot be met by an expansion in our road building programme without devastating environmental consequences. Geographically, this country is unable to stand such a great increase in road traffic.
We must consider very carefully how the impact of any new roads, private or public, is measured. The Government must take into account the overall environmental, social and economic costs, and then compare those costs with the costs of other transport options. I know that the Department has commissioned research into the monetary evaluation of the environmental effects of roads. I welcome that, although I am not sure that the results will be capable of rigid application, or that they should be rigidly applied. Much will depend on the use to which the findings are put. We must also find ways of developing a more sophisticated method of measuring the true environmental benefits and losses of all transport modes, including the land use charges brought about by new systems.
If I were convinced that the Government would change their attitude and that they would view transport policy as a key issue, encompassing the economic, social and environmental development of our nation, regions and communities, I would be less hesitant about giving my support to parts I and II of the Bill. However, I fear that the philosophy of the market will have overriding influence on any proposal for private road concessions.
Despite constant reassurances from Ministers about public inquiries and normal planning control procedures, I am concerned about the implications of private toll roads on the development of the surrounding areas. Although I accept that highway authorities will be able to acquire land only for a highway-related function, there is nothing to stop a concessionaire from buying land with a view to development. The fact that there will already be access to a road may make the planning application more acceptable and the countryside may become a developers' paradise.
I believe that development potential will attract bids for the concession. I do not think that many companies will clamour to build new roads in the sole hope of making a killing from the profits from tolls. The introduction of private toll roads will bring the danger of a two-tier road system, possibly even on toll roads themselves. Will the Minister take the opportunity to assure us today that he will not permit private roads or even lanes to be used exclusively by lorries? Will he knock that stupid idea on the head once and for all?
Many people will not be able to afford the tolls, which by all accounts will be very expensive. They will have no alternative but to use the free road system. Other European countries, including France and Spain, have good toll road networks which are a delight to drive on. They are virtually empty while other roads are crowded with local drivers and commercial vehicles. Unless the Government are committed to providing and maintaining a public road system of comparable standard, we shall end up with private affluence and public squalor.
Although we hear much banter about the word "additionality", I have little faith in the Government's commitment to anything that is seen as public. We have only to look at the sorry condition of most of our infrastructure and other public services to see that underfunding is prevalent.
In future, allocations of Treasury money will take account of existing provision, private or not, and the assessment of the needs of the Department of Transport will be correspondingly reduced. I fear that it is too much to hope that any money which the Department may save the Treasury through the private financing of roads will be allocated to the improvement of the public transport provision, which we badly need, particularly on railways. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will state that the financing of roads will help other modes of transport.
Those are some of my concerns on parts I and II; I hope to pursue those and other matters in Committee.
As for the remainder of the Bill, I can only say, at long last. For years road users and pedestrians have suffered from the dangers and inconvenience caused by constant, lengthy and unco-ordinated street works. The measures in that part of the Bill are welcome. Some amendments may be necessary, for example, to the permissible level of fees payable by utilities which undertake street works.
Many of the groups that represent disabled people are grateful for the changes made to the Bill in another place and for the amendments which the Government have promised. They seek further assurances and hope that in all cases they will be consulted on the code of practice and safety. The Minister will know that I sought assurances for disabled people when we were discussing previous legislation. I make a similar commitment on the current Bill. Perhaps I shall not have to follow that up because the Minister will have considered it already.
I hope that road work costs, which are a terrible imposition on residents, will be considered fully, although there is not much in the Bill on the subject. On the whole, I expect the street works part of the Bill to have a smooth ride through the House. Perhaps the other parts will not have as bumpy a ride as the Minister assumes.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I must begin by declaring a financial interest as a consultant to British Telecom and an interest in the cable industry, not of a financial nature but as chairman of the all-party cable satellite television group in the House.
So far this has not been the most exciting debate. The official Opposition are now represented by three hon. Members, of whom two are women, which would certainly please the 300 group, but one would have expected greater interest and opposition from the Labour Benches than there has been so far.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose——

Mr. Coombs: I am tempting the hon. Lady, and she is succumbing.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Perhaps I may explain to the hon. Gentleman that two women members of the Labour party are the equal of any 50 male members of the Conservative party.

Mr. Coombs: The hilarity which which that remark has been greeted is, I think, sufficient reward for the hon. Lady without me adding anything. Perhaps I should not tempt the hon. Lady further but should proceed with my remarks.
Having listened to some of my hon. Friends giving a warm welcome to parts I and II of the Bill, it may be sufficient for me to say that I share their feelings. I hope and believe that the Government will agree that there is no question of the publicly-funded road programme being cut in any way as a result of the additional funding that may become available from the private sector. I think that I can anticipate what my hon. Friend the Minister will say when I draw attention to the fact that the Government's road programme has been doubled in size in recent months and that there is now a substantial commitment to new road building, to the widening of motorways, to other trunk road schemes and to bypasses. That is extremely important. I welcome any commitment from my hon. Friend that there will be no slackening in the Government's determination to continue that programme wholeheartedly.
The new roads proposals in the Bill are exciting because they offer the prospect of additional funding. I want to add a word to the earlier exchanges between some of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members about the length of time that it takes to construct roads. I do not want any unfair or unreasonable advantage to be given to the private sector in building roads. I want roads to be constructed more quickly, irrespective of whether they are being provided by the private or the public sector. The period that elapses now between the original concept of a road and its completion is far too long.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say something, in reply to the debate or later, about the Government's examination of the procedures for public inquiries, which I understand has been under way for a long time—perhaps not quite as long as it takes to build a new road, although it begins to seem like that. We should give the potential private road constructor reassurance that he can begin his task within a time framework which would enable him to estimate the financing involved.
The experience of the French in building motorways and other major roads is interesting. They are much quicker. There is now a considerable number of toll motorways throughout France, which, as other hon. Members have said, are extremely attractive. Although the French have succeeded in persuading private companies to construct motorways, some of those companies do not last very long and the motorways then return to the public sector. The Bill proposes that roads return to the public sector over time. However, what would happen if, having constructed a private road in this country, a company then went out of business for whatever reason? What would be the Government's attitude?
Other hon. Members have already stated that they welcome the proposals in parts III and IV. We have waited a long time for the implementation of the Home report. I

should like to praise Professor Home for his report, which is the basis of this legislation. There is a substantial measure of agreement between interested parties which have formed the Highway Authorities Utilities Committee and which has been pressing hard for the introduction of legislation such as that contained in the Bill. It is sometimes difficult to know which is worse—the disruption that is caused by the undertakers who open our highways, frequently in serial rather than in parallel procedures, or the patchwork of poorly finished repairs that they leave behind them. At present, the ultimate responsibility for reinstatement lies with the highway authorities.
Several hon. Members have already drawn constituency examples to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I should be happy to welcome him to various roads in Swindon, such as Kent road and Hythe road, which are a danger to life and limb in their present state. When I was the chairman of the Reading transportation committee a few years ago, there was great pressure from the public for speed humps, which are also known as sleeping policemen. On a return visit to Reading recently, I noticed that several had been introduced. In Swindon, we have the alternative—speed hollows, which are the remains of street works that have been badly finished. They have the same effect as speed humps in slowing down traffic because they have an equally disastrous effect on a car's suspension when taken at speed.
I am delighted that there has been such a large measure of consensus on the basis of the Home report and that we are now considering detailed legislation. The only snag is that the Government have not simply brought forward legislation that implements the recommendations of the Horne report. The Bill contains a series of proposals that differ from the provisions of the Home report—admittedly in small ways, but in ways that are important for the parties with an interest in the legislation.
I refer now to some of those points of difference between the utilities and the highway authorities on the one hand, and the Government's proposals on the other. Two hon. Members have already referred to clause 48, which deals with emergency works. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on that subject. As worded, the Bill limits the definition of emergencies as
danger to persons or property.
My hon. Friend was right to ask how far that definition will stretch and how the courts will interpret it when, inevitably, a case based on the definition comes before the courts.
Clearly, the proposals limit the definition of "emergency works" to utilities such as gas and electricity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me whether an emergency that affects, for example, the communications of a large company would be of sufficient importance to justify emergency work being undertaken. If a utility is digging up a road and severs a cable, for example, to the stock exchange, would that constitute an emergency or would the Government be happy to see the stock exchange off air for hours or days? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have little doubt that the Labour party would want to see the collapse of our economy for its own purposes, but I suspect that most rational people—perhaps even Opposition Members if they were trying to be rational—would agree that that would be unfortunate. Such things could happen to any company. If a company


that relied on computers suddenly found its power supply cut off, how long would that company have to wait for work to be carried out? That question deserves an answer.
Is it not ironic that the legislation affecting the operations of British Telecom requires that company to pay a rebate to customers who lose their service? Is it fair to demand that BT pays a rebate to its customers when the Bill would make it impossible for BT to take the action that is needed to restore that service? I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give some satisfaction on that point.
Clause 70 relates to the requirement for undertakers to pay fees before they are allowed to open roads. In the other place, Lord Brabazon of Tara said that the clause would constitute a useful reserve power. However, it is not clear on the face of the Bill that it is a reserve power because the phrase
An undertaker … shall pay … the prescribed fee
does not itself suggest a reserve power. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could make it clear whether the Government intend to introduce a fee-paying basis for street works from the outset or whether they, intend to keep that in reserve as a back-up threat if the regime that they otherwise seek to put in place under the Bill is unsuccessful in bringing about the improvements that we all want.
I remind the House that about 50 per cent. of all street works are undertaken by the existing highway authorities, not by the public utilities which have been the main subject of our debate until now. Will those highway authorities —as street authorities—be required to pay fees in the future? If a financial system is to be imposed for street works, it would be better to introduce a system of penalties for poor performance or for over-long street openings rather than impose a system of fees right from the start. Most people accept the common sense of suggesting that those who fail to deliver should be punished, but that those who deliver satisfactorily should not be punished. Again, I should be pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comments on that suggestion.
Clause 51 refers to breaking up or opening streets. Does that include an undertaking opening a manhole cover to get at the plant underneath it? If so, that would have a minimal effect in terms of disruption or reinstatement. It would make sense to exclude from the Bill the opening of a manhole cover in order to deal with plant underneath.
Clause 54 has been the subject of considerable discussion already this evening. I can tell those hon. Members who have been drawn into the argument about footways and pavements that, whereas people tend to use the word pavement when referring to that part of the highway where pedestrians usually feel safe to walk, the law refers to the footway. Hon. Members will find in the Bill plenty of references to footways. That covers the point raised by, amongst others, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes).
The 12-month restriction rule, which is the essential feature of clause 54, will create problems for some utilities. It is right in principle to ask a utility to plan well in advance, but sometimes that simply is not possible. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will be sympathetic to the approach of utilities which simply cannot, for a good and reasonable cause, meet the requirements of the 12-month restriction rule.
For example, what would happen if two undertakers in competition with one another were in a position where one had opened the street knowing full well that the other intended to lay additional plant in that street in the near future? Would the second undertaker be prevented from doing any works for 12 months? If so, there is a case in natural justice for re-examining the clause.
Clause 57 refers to protected streets. There will be a great deal of sympathy in the House for the desirability of ensuring that some streets are not subject to works of any kind. We look to the cable industry to provide a substantial amount of new infrastructure during the next five years so that Britain will have a cable network, for a number of reasons, including the provision of a greater choice of entertainment. If we go ahead with clause 57 as drafted, there is no doubt that the cable industry will be severely disadvantaged. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that into account when we discuss the Bill in Committee.
The availability of arbitration for undertakers is written into the Bill in a number of places, and clause 57 is one of them. But it is not widely available. Parts of the Bill give no indication that arbitration will be available. Is the Government's intention to provide arbitration across the board where the street authority and the undertaker are in disagreement?
Clause 78 refers to liability for damage or loss. Here again, there is a fairly dramatic change from the provisions of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. How widely does that provision go? It seems to suggest that any individual who owns apparatus in the street will have the right to claim financial loss if street works are undertaken in his street. As each householder owns the drain that links his house to the main sewer, that appears on the face of it to give every householder the right to claim financial loss if an undertaker is operating in the street. It may well be that the courts would dismiss any such claim out of hand, but if the effect was to lead to a large increase in vexatious litigation, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it would be undesirable. I hope that he will therefore look carefully at the wording of clause 78 to see whether some reduction in the scope of the clause would be appropriate.
Clause 91 has already been referred to and deals with the general power of prosecution. At present, there is no restriction on the people who can prosecute the undertakers—the utilities. In the 1950 Act only the local authorities and interested parties have the power to prosecute. I hope that my hon. Friend will look carefully at the scope of the power to prosecute in clause 91 and see whether it would not be appropriate to reduce that scope.
All those matters will be dealt with in Committee, but my hon. Friend should be given every opportunity to allay hon. Members' doubts and fears and I hope he will find time to do so tonight.
I conclude by making two more general points. First——

Mr. John Home Robertson: Penultimately.

Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
We are putting a further important responsibility into the hands of local authorities. We are to call them street authorities. How competent are those authorities to shoulder that burden? Many authorities will find it difficult to employ the staff needed to tackle co-ordination. I make


no criticism of them, but we must recognise that they will have a problem. However, I do criticise local authorities —Lambeth, not so far from here, springs to mind—which at present seem incapable of running anything. We are putting considerable power into their hands in asking them to take on the co-ordination of street works. That worries me and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to address the question of resources and the competence of street authorities when he discusses the Bill further.
As the public purse will no longer have to fund those roads which will be built by the private sector, I hope that those resources will be made available for an increased programme of repair for local roads which have been the subject of so much abuse and poor maintenance and repair in the past. We have the potential for a much improved means of proceeding with street works in future, as in the Bill, and that is to be welcomed, but what about those roads which are not likely to be the subject of any street works in future but which still have the legacy of 40 years of poor repair and maintenance? I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the House some comfort tonight by saying that additional funds will be made available for those roads which would otherwise be left out. With those words, I give the Bill a warm welcome.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am unable to join the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) in his criticism of the excitement that has been engendered by the Bill. One of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament is that one has the opportunity to take part in such exciting occasions. This will probably remain in my memory for many years as one of the most interesting occasions that I have experienced, ranking a little below the occasion on which, at 4 o'clock in the morning, we debated rape seed. But everyone must have a set of priorities.
The Bill is an interesting example of an attitude of Government which I had not truly suspected. It seems to be an elaborate joke. We have before us a beautifully printed document, which is in effect two Bills jammed together. Its main purpose would appear to be that the Government, who are coming up to a general election and face considerable pressure on their transport policy—they do not have one and they will have to appear to have one —have decided that one way out of their difficulties is to suggest that some alternative form of finance is available for a whole lot of new and important roads. If that is the theory, we should examine it closely.
In America the Select Committee on Transport consulted widely the people who have built toll roads and the various authorities, both elected and private, who were involved in building such roads. The Committee also advertised in Britain and particularly within the banking community asking for evidence—an old-fashioned idea, I know—of any real demand in the private sector to get into the business of building main or other roads in Britain.
When the Minister's friend—if I may so describe him —made his opening speech, I was convinced that he would say that the Government had clear, positive and definite evidence that private enterprise in Britain was full of entrepreneurs who were inspired by the efficiency of private transport projects such as the channel tunnel. This

week it has become clear that there will be no train services from the tunnel north of London and that there is considerable difficulty with even producing a signal system within the tunnel which will allow it to open on time. I expected to hear from the Minister that, inspired by the efforts of private enterprise in transport during the period of this Government, private companies were keen to enter into partnership with the Government and provide finance for new motorways and that the result would be a great extension of road building in the coming years. That was not what we got. It is not in the Bill.
We have not had any evidence from Ministers with responsibility for transport that the private sector is champing at the bit to rush in and build new roads. Indeed, tonight we have heard several speeches which dealt more closely with the inability of private utilities to put back the right bit of earth in the right hole in the right road than with the basic meaning of the Bill.
The Select Committee on Transport asked some questions and obtained some revealing answers. We asked about additionality. If the Government are sincere about providing cash, we need to know whether the money generated by the private sector will be an additional commitment to roads or in exchange for the amount put in at national level. If so, perhaps the Government can answer a simple question—one posed by the Select Committee: will private sector funding be allowed to lead to a net increase in the long run or is the spirit of the Ryrie rules still in evidence? We asked for a clear statement, but that has not been forthcoming.
The Committee asked about the costs of toll roads. Motorists in Britain who will have access to the toll roads will want to know about the advantages. They will want to know not only now long it will take to get from A to B but how the finances can be justified, what they will be charged and what benefits they will receive in return. Some of our witnesses ventured estimates of how much the tolls would be. For example, some said that they would be 18p per vehicle mile, not counting land costs. They said that from Oxford to Birmingham it would cost about £3 for cars and £15 for commercial vehicles. There was some doubt whether tolls could be sustained at such a level, given the existence of competing free roads. The Minister did not address that point.
The Minister suggested that private industry would gain all sorts of benefits from toll roads and would therefore be prepared to make considerable sacrifices to enter into partnership with the Government. But in America we were told clearly that unless the land was given to the company, in many instances it was almost impossible to make a toll road viable in modern conditions, unless there was an alternative means of making money out of it.
One of the witnesses who came before the Committee made it clear. He said that if, for example, he was asked to take part in widening the M6, he would expect to be given some input almost from the moment the work started. The quid pro quo would be simple. A private firm would undertake the extra widening, but it would put a toll on to an existing public road and the users would have to contribute towards the private developer's cash flow. That is fine, if that is how one wants to do it. But hon. Members from the north-west may find that their constituents who use the M6 will have the odd word to say when they are not


only jammed in the queue to join the motorway but paying for the privilege before the widened road is anywhere near the planning stage.
I also expected to hear from the Government some clear statements that they looked forward to private finance coming in to plan better schemes. One objection to private roads has always been that it may be in the interests of a developer to divert a road in a certain direction in return for putting money into it—it may open up land, bring benefit to private individuals or firms and mean a great deal of money to them—hut it may not suit the priorities of the road planning authority, the people who live in the area or, indeed, those who will use the road.
May we have an undertaking from the Government that there will be no question of private roads being planned to go where the developers want them to go rather than where the people who will use them would like them to go? I ask that question because in my area we have been told that we are to be given the great joy of a private road from Birmingham to Manchester. Many people would be happy to see a road built parallel with the M6. But in my experience roads fill up. It is sod's law. The more roads that are built, the faster people rush out to buy cars.
But let us accept the case for a road from Birmingham to Manchester to speed up the traffic in both directions and the movement of goods and people. We have had no information about where such a road will go. When we ask questions about it we are told that only when the Government have evaluated the three options and talked to the developers about where they want the road to go will it be possible to tell the House of Commons where the line of route will be. That is not an acceptable way to plan a major road. It produces planning blight and considerable difficulty for local authorities and people who want to develop other services. It runs away with the basic question of road planning. An important part of any road development must be the right of people in the area to object to the line of route, the impact on the environment or the general changes that it will bring about in the quality of their lives.
We are told by the Government that a move towards private development of roads would not alter people's right to object in any way. But that is not made clear in the Bill. That right would have to be written into the Bill in no uncertain terms before I would be prepared to trust the Government. That may be ungracious, but perhaps the more that one knows them, the less one trusts them. That is why I am worried.
A road scheme is a long-term investment. It is not built quickly or cheaply. Considerable investment is put into it and a return is expected only over a long period. Therefore, the decisions taken must be carefully thought out and properly researched. Ever since the Government came to power we have been told by successive Ministers of Transport, who seem to go in and out of the Department of Transport's door like revolving puppets, that the Government have speeded up the commissioning and designing of roads, that they have introduced penalty clauses for those who construct roads, that they have simplified the planning procedures and that they have produced a high quality system that has cut much of the waiting time. Ministers tell us that they expect that to continue to such an extent that in future the time taken to plan and build a road will be nothing like the time taken by previous Governments.
If that is so, the Government should demonstrate where the advantages lie in allowing private developers to build toll roads for which our constituents will have to pay. So far, they have not done that. They have not demonstrated the commercial advantages of toll roads, nor have they said what commercial road builders would do that present road builders are not required to do. The fact that the Government skated so lightly and quickly over the point means that they have no case.
My objection to toll roads does not necessarily derive from a Marxist point of view. To be perfectly honest, I do not even know what is the Marxist-Leninist point of view on toll roads. However, the Government will have to demonstrate both to me and to those whom I represent the positive advantages of toll roads. In this debate no one has bothered to put that case.
We have been told that in future we shall have toll roads. There is talk about hypothecation—a lovely way of saying that we must try to find a way of ensuring that the Treasury does not get its sticky fingers on money that has been raised for something else—but there is no suggestion that the Government intend to break the habit of hundreds of centuries and say that the money raised from toll roads will automatically be used for other road schemes. I would not expect any Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow anyone to get away with that. They all have a dozen things that they want to do with the money. All that they plan for is how much more money they can get in, not how much more money they can shell out.
The Government's decision on toll roads is based on an invincible ignorance that arises from their political commitment. Their decision cannot be demonstrated in terms of road planning. They cannot say that everybody wants toll roads. They cannot even demonstrate that the City of London, or the Bank of America, or any of the other financial institutions have demanded such a development. They have not. Both the Government and the House of Commons know that.
The Government are doing something else: a Bill concerning street works, which is important and necessary and has been knocking about for a long while and that probably needs more work to be done to it, is being combined with another issue, new roads, so that at the next general election they can say, "We're going to build you all sorts of marvellous new roads because British industry wants to rush into partnership with us." As a partnership, it sounds to me like the difference between Abbot and Costello.

Mr. Ray Whitney: The whole House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Until she spoke the level of excitement in the debate was indeed of the order of that in a debate about rape seed at 4 o'clock in the morning. She has certainly brought some dash and panache to the proceedings. I am sorry, therefore, that beyond that her contribution was less positive.
The hon. Lady's attacks on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his colleagues were uncharacteristically ungenerous. They took no account of the numerous initiatives that they have launched. The only criticism is that they were introduced so late in the life of this Parliament. However, they are now producing sums of money that would have been


unthinkable under previous Labour Administrations and that would be just as unthinkable if, heaven forfend, another Labour Government came to power. That has been clearly demonstrated in every statement made by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The economy of this country would be wrecked. A road programme, or any other programme, would then be completely out of the question.
The hon. Lady was not sure whether it was Marxism or Marxist-Leninism that led to her opposition to toll roads. I believe that it was neither; it was something much more deep and fundamental—a totally blind, deep-seated, 1950s resistance to any new idea. That is characteristic of the Labour party.
I intend to refer to part III. I must declare my interest in the cable industry. I founded and now I am the chairman of a cable television company. My interest and involvement in the cable industry dates back to about 1981. The Bill will have an important impact on the cable industry, which will play a crucial role in the sensible management and maintenance of the streets and highways of this country, particularly during the next few years. The exciting, new construction programme resulting from the recently awarded franchises covering 70 per cent. of households means that the cable companies will probably construct as much of the infrastructure as all the other public utilities combined.
Most of the provisions in the Bill are based on the Horne report. The cable industry will help to create a high-tech modern network that will bring great benefits to this country—both to the domestic consumer and to the business sector. The industry welcomes the general objectives of the Bill, in particular the power to extend cable franchises and to carry out its own reinstatement of works. The cable industry, more than any other public utility contractor, has the strongest possible incentive to carry out good reinstatement. When the cable operator has dug a hole, carried out the work and then filled in the hole he has to knock on householders' doors and try to sell his product. He has a strong incentive, therefore, to carry out good, effective and permanent reinstatement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) referred to the fact that improvements can be made to the Bill in Committee. It would be inappropriate to go through them in detail during a Second Reading debate, but I intend to mention two of them. They deviate from the Horne report. The first is the fee for the occupation of the highway. The question is whether that is intended to be a reserve power. But the Government have taken the matter further than the Horne report and I hope that they will reconsider the matter in Committee, particularly if the provision is left unclear on the issue of whether it is a reserve power.
A second area on which the spotlight should be turned in Committee is clause 78 and the liability for damage or loss which may be caused as a result of street works. The liability provided for in the Bill goes beyond the limits recommended by Home, which said that the liability of utilities should be confined to making good any physical damage caused by undertakers to the street or other apparatus in it.
The need to make sure that the climate is right for the cable industry, which means right for the people of Britain,

was underlined this afternoon with the encouraging announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his White Paper following the duopoly review of the telecommunications industry. My right hon. Friend made a slight error when he suggested that cable operators would be spending about £3 billion in the coming five years. Most industry estimates put the figure at about £5 billion.
I hope that now that the duopoly review has come out the way it seems to be moving, more investment than hitherto appeared likely will come from British investors. It will go towards creating, unique in the world, a high-grade, very high-tech—indeed, the ultimate in modern technology—telecommunications network.
If that objective is to be achieved—all the building blocks are now in place after many years of making progress; the omens and prospects are extremely good—it is crucial that the few remaining areas where the Bill can be improved should receive consideration in Committee. Then our objectives for improving communications, in addition to improving the maintenance of our streets and highways, which is the primary objective of the Bill, will be in our grasp.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. Parts I and II, which extend the range of ideas for the road network, are to be highly commended and I have pleasure in supporting the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Seventy-seven clauses in the Bill relate exclusively to Scotland, so I make no apologies for intervening in the debate. The appearance of those clauses may or may not have anything to do with the fact that the comparatively new Secretary of State for Transport is the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who is not affectionately remembered from his tenure of office as Secretary of State for Scotland. That is particularly so in transport matters, for it has not escaped the attention of many people in Scotland that he managed to spend more money on roads around London in his first six days than he spent on transport as a whole in Scotland during his six years as Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has often reminded us of the Socialist majority in Scotland. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend, when Secretary of State for Scotland, listened to the strictures of Labour Members to the effect that we should not spend money on roads and should even discourage motorists from using the roads.

Mr. Home Robertson: That was a phenomenally silly debating point. If the hon. Gentleman had ever been to Scotland, he would appreciate how much the entire economy there depends heavily on road transport. Indeed, there is no alternative to road transport in much of Scotland, and the condition of the road network is deplorable in many areas.
The Scottish aspects of part II of the Bill relate to toll roads, of which we have a number, or at any rate a number of de facto toll roads, namely, the bridges. I do not know how one can separate bridges from roads, of which they form a part. We must pay tolls to cross the Firth of Forth on the Forth bridge, the Firth of Tay on the Tay bridge and the Erskine bridge, and in due course the Minister


proposes to have a privately funded road bridge built from Kyleakin to the Kyle of Lochalsh to form a road link to the Isle of Skye, and that will be a toll bridge.
I regard the imposition of tolls on those essential sections of road as a totally unreasonable imposition on the affected communities. It is a fiction to say that people have a choice because they can use an alternative road to get from one place to another. Try telling that to the people of Fife, who must pay to get in and out of the region, and perhaps that will apply even more so to the proposed bridge to the island of Skye. When that is constructed, it will be the only way on and off the island. People will have to pay to use it and they will have no alternative.
Toll roads represent a discriminatory and unfair imposition on people and businesses in areas which are dependent on toll links. I suspect that the experience of the financing of the Forth road bridge shows that the whole toll system is more bother than it is worth. It is an expensive undertaking to continue collecting the tolls, with all the hassle involved in that, and I doubt whether all that much has been achieved.
I suppose that part II of the Bill is paving the way, from Scotland's point of view, for the so-called fast link, which the Scottish Office is proposing, to be funded privately to establish a new road link from the west of Edinburgh to join the A74 road near Biggar. I regard that as a gimmick in many ways and doubt whether it will come to pass. I think it unlikely that commercial investors will be all that interested in footing the bill to build a road in that part of the country.
Even if they were to do so, why should people from the west side of Edinburgh—for that matter, from anywhere in Edinburgh or from the area which I represent in Lothian region, and businesses in those areas—have to pay a toll to get access to the road southwards towards the west of England? It is discriminatory.
There may be a case in principle for establishing tolls. Equally, from my point of view, there is a case in principle for not having tolls. Either the whole network or none of it should be covered by tolls. It is wrong that it should be discriminatory and that unfortunate people in some areas should have to pay to travel about.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench, will not be surprised to hear me refer to the burning need for investment in the Al, the highway which is supposed to serve my constituency. The hon. Gentleman knows it well, being a constituent of mine.
The House has heard me going on and on, and will hear me going on more, about the shortcomings of the A1 trunk road and the single carriageway section of the so-called great north road between Musselburgh in my constituency and Morpeth in Northumberland. That road is hopelessly inadequate to meet the needs of the traffic there and is a serious handicap to travel and trade between the east of Scotland and the east of England.
I again draw the Minister's attention to the joint report produced last year by the three local highways authorities —Lothian regional council, The Borders regional council, and Northumberland county council. That report made an overwhelming case for a phased upgrading of that route. There is no way that that will be done by the private sector. There is only one way to upgrade that 60-mile stretch of highway, which is the missing link between the east of

England and the east of Scotland, and that is by public investment. The road is congested and dangerous and it gives rise to accumulating difficulties in my part of Scotland. Fully a third of the traffic on the A1 consists of heavy goods vehicles. It is a single carriageway and twists a great deal, and that gives rise to what the Minister and his officials call "platooning" of traffic. It would be more accurate to refer to convoys of traffic. The situation is chaotic and the issue will not go away. I hope that the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office will continue actively to consider the case for upgrading the A1.
I shall now deal with part IV of the Bill as it affects Scotland. It is related to congestion on the Al because of the high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. The situation is aggravated by road works, whether by the highways authority or the Scottish Development Department or the statutory undertakings, such as British Gas, Scottish Power, Scottish Nuclear, British Telecom or the water department of Lothian regional council.
In a written question that I tabled last month I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to
list the locations and duration of temporary traffic light controls on the Scottish section of the Al trunk road during the last year, giving the reason for each case."—[Official Report, 12 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 452.]
I will not bore the House by referring to the Minister's reply in detail, because it takes up almost a page of Hansard and it is in small print. I shall highlight a couple of instances which have caused chaos in my constituency last year. The Minister will be aware of them.
In his reply the Minister said that for six months from June to December there were traffic lights at a maximum of two locations because of a gas main installation between Haddington and East Linton. Just up the road, for four months between April and August, there was another set where a new roundabout was being constructed by the Minister's Department at Haddington. That makes three sets of temporary traffic lights on the single carriageway Al in East Lothian. They caused absolute mayhem for people in my constituency travelling to and from work in Edinburgh. It was not uncommon for people to be delayed for half an hour, three quarters of an hour or even an hour by those temporary traffic lights. There were 16 more temporary traffic lights further south of that section of the A1 in The Borders region, and they operated at different times during the same period.
Such delays lead to chaos, cause long convoys of trucks and create dangerous traffic conditions and frustrated people. The Bill is supposed to improve the situation, but I suspect that little more than pious hopes are being expressed. Clause 113(1) reads:
A road works authority shall use their best endeavours to co-ordinate the execution of work of all kinds (including works for road purposes) in the roads for which they are responsible—".
I know that Lothian regional council used its best endeavours to prevent chaos in my part of the world last year, but it still happened. I hope that there will be powers to ensure that local highway authorities, which can foresee the kind of difficulties that will arise in their areas, will manage and phase roadworks not only by their own work force but also by statutory undertakers and gas boards and so on to overcome such problems. They must be able to ensure that works do not all occur at once but are properly phased so that traffic is kept flowing.
We have all experienced the frustration of being stuck for what can seem a long time at a red temporary traffic light in the middle of the country. Sometimes we can see that there is no traffic coming in the opposite direction and are tempted to jump the red light. There is no need for such frustration because "smart" traffic lights, which can tell when there is no traffic coming, can help to keep the traffic moving. I am glad to see that some contractors are using such equipment. That should be the norm rather than the exception. I hope that Ministers will ensure that local authorities and contractors working on roads will use the most up-to-date equipment to avoid unnecessary congestion.
I reiterate that I am not happy about the principle of tolls. They should be done away with, and I hope that part IV of the Bill will lead to better management and co-ordination of street works. However, I am not optimistic.

Mr. Graham Riddick: It was interesting to note that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) thought it necessary to justify his taking part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he said that he spoke as a Scottish Member because there was some Scottish content in the Bill. Even if there was not a Scottish dimension to the Bill, I would welcome his contribution, just as I hope that in future he will welcome my contributions at Scottish Question Time.

Mr. Home Robertson: No deal.

Mr. Riddick: That is an interesting observation.
The hon. Gentleman was rather mean-minded in his comments about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. An enormous amount of public money has been pumped into Scotland. I spend my summer holidays in Scotland every year. I drive up to Ullapool, and year after year I have seen an improvement in the quality of the roads. I have seen roads widened and dual carriageways introduced. The hon. Gentleman should give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Home Robertson: Where?

Mr. Riddick: For example, I drive up the A74 and the A9, both of which have been significantly improved. I at least congratulate my hon. Friends in the Scottish Office on the way in which they have improved Scotland's roads.
I shall devote most of my speech to parts III and IV of the Bill, which deal with street works. However I welcome parts I and II, which will encourage the private sector to initiate road building schemes and will bring private capital to an area which has been almost the sole preserve of the public sector. There has always been pressure on public spending, and when roads have to compete with hospitals and schools and other vital public services, it is almost inevitable that not as much money will be spent on new roads as we would like. The Bill will provide the opportunity for extra private capital to be brought into this area.
The speech of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) demonstrated once again that the Labour party has an ideological hang-up, a hostility, to private enterprise. It does not want private enterprise to be

involved in the designing and building of roads. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of being ideological in parts I and II of the Bill; but it is Labour Members who are being ideological in their opposition to these parts of the Bill.
You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I initiated an Adjournment debate last October on the state of the roads in Kirklees, which is my local authority area. At that time—before the Queen's Speech—I called for legislation to be introduced to implement the Home report's recommendations. You gently chided me for calling for legislation in an Adjournment debate as the rules of the House do not allow that. I am delighted that the Bill is now before the House and that the recommendations of the Home report will be implemented.
Anyone who goes to west Yorkshire knows only too well when they have arrived in Kirklees, not merely because of the reassuring signs telling them that they have entered a nuclear free zone, but because the roads seem bumpier and less comfortable to drive on. Potholes and uneven surfaces abound in Kirklees, but local roads in other parts of the country also leave much to be desired.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: It is lack of money.

Mr. Riddick: That is not the case and I shall demonstrate later in my speech that it is not the problem. More often than not, the cause of such problems is the way in which local authorities have failed to support utility companies. We know that the main cause of the problem is that utility companies have dug up the roads to lay new pipes or cables, or to repair the existing ones. On average, nearly 30,000 excavations are carried out in Kirklees every year. That is a phenomenal number. Yet utility companies are unable to complete the work of excavating the road that they started. The Bill will give them the power to do the job properly. Indeed, it will not merely give them the power but will place responsibility for full reinstatement of roads fairly and squarely on their shoulders, and I welcome that. From my conversations with representatives of utility companies, I understand that they also welcome the Bill.
Kirklees council, like many other highway authorities, insists on carrying out permanent reinstatement work. Such work should be carried out between six and nine months after the utility companies have completed the first part of the excavation process and carried out the temporary reinstatement. Regretably, that is not being done competently by my local council.
My inquiries to four of the main utility companies have revealed some fascinating statistics. Utility companies were cagey about giving me too much information. It was not because they did not want me to have the information, but because they were worried about the fact that it might sour their relationships with local councils. Nonetheless, I found out enough to know that something is wrong. I discovered that between £2·5 million and £3·5 million has not been claimed by Labour-controlled Kirklees council for permanent reinstatement work, which it should have carried out during the past four years. That is complacency on a grand scale, and it is resented by the utility companies, who find it unbelievably frustrating. They get much of the flak for the poor state of the roads in Kirklees but the major cause can be laid at the door of the council.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr.Dunnachie) said that the cause of the problem was that the Government did not provide enough money. I hope that he will accept that that is not the root cause. It is because local authorities, many Labour-controlled, have for many years been incompetent in carrying out permanent reinstatement work. The figures that I have given to the House this evening are an illustration of that fact.
Yet local Labour councillors in Kirklees are opposed to Professor Horne's recommendations, which are contained in the Bill. I realise that that contrasts with the views expressed by the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps Kirklees Labour party is not as enlightened as they are. The only crumb of comfort—if one can call it that—for residents living in Kirklees is that the situation is almost as bad in other west Yorkshire highway authorities as it is in Kirklees, or at least that is what the utility companies have told me.
Recently, British Gas issued a paper suggesting that about £8·3 million is waiting to be collected by local authorities in the north-eastern region to carry out permanent reinstatement work. That is an indictment of many local authorities. In the paper which was released last November, British Gas said:
The proposed legislation will benefit both British Gas and the public.
It points out that £8·3 million is awaiting payment and that the legislation should lead to earlier completion of reinstatement work and, in some cases, lower costs for that work. It continues:
Lower costs could come from the higher productivity stemming from new techniques, such as foamed concrete, pioneered in the North Eastern region",
which incorporates Yorkshire.
Finally, the paper points out that British Gas anticipates
reduced timescales for jobs using the new techniques and less inconvenience to road users.
I am pleased that the Bill is before the House. Help is at hand for Kirklees residents because the Bill will end the present unsatisfactory arrangements. Utility companies will be fully responsible for total reinstatement of roads and the clearest standards covering the quality of work, specifications and workmanship will be laid down nationally. Work will be inspected and penalities will apply if it does not come up to scratch.
The fact that the law has been clarified at this stage is especially important because we are entering the era of cable television, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Cable television provides an exciting prospect for the country, although we cannot minimise the disruption that will be caused to local people as pavements and roads are dug to lay the cable.
Last Thursday, when I was canvassing in the Ribble
Valley constituency, I came across road works in a couple of streets in Preston where the cables for cable television were being laid. Local residents welcomed the fact that cable television would be available to them, but they were not enjoying the disruption caused to them in the meantime. While I am on the subject of Preston and the Ribble Valley, let me add that the Conservative candidate will undoubtedly win a handsome victory on Thursday, when the good people of Ribble Valley go to the polls.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend think that the people of Ribble Valley would be keen on the idea of a cable network providing direct input from this place? Mr. Evans would become a household name before long.

Mr. Riddick: I am a modest fellow. Tonight's debate has not been one of the most riveting, but of course, if people want to watch us, who am I to deny them that pleasure?
It is worth asking why some people in local government —for example, my local Labour councillors; and, let me point out to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), Liberal Democrat councillors—retain their hostility to the street works provisions. The hon. Member for Southport shakes his head; I can show him a press cutting that reports the Liberal Democrat representative on the highways committee as saying that the Horne report is wrong and should not be implemented. But perhaps that particular councillor is just a maverick.
I believe that there are two reasons for that hostility. First, there is the genuine and honourable concern about the quality of the work carried out by the utilities. I believe that the rigorous standards imposed by the Bill, plus the technical advances made by British Gas—for instance, the foam concrete—will prove those fears to be groundless. The second reason is less honourable: those arguing for the status quo do not want the local authorities' direct labour organisations to lose any work.
I am surprised and dismayed—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening to this part of my speech at least—by clause 90, which empowers local authorities to undertake street works. I presume that the aim is to enable the DLOs to make their services and expertise available to the utilities if they so wish. However, having seen how some local authorities have gone out of their way to undermine competitive tendering in other regards, and how they have attempted to keep those functions in-house, I believe that we should firmly close the door on the opportunity for that to happen here.
I would have expected my hon. Friend, who is one of the pioneers of competitive tendering in local government, to be the first to be concerned about clause 90. If he needs any convincing, he should note the welcome given to the clause by the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape). By all means let us allow these organisations to offer their services to the utility companies; but they should do so as private companies, not as DLOs. If they need time to change their status, let us by all means provide for a transitional period.
I know that two of my hon. Friends are keen to speak. Let me merely say that I welcome the Bill. It will take time for its provisions to be implemented, but there is light at the end of the tunnel for my constituents, who have had to put up with the appalling state of the roads in Kirklees for far too long. They are fed up with potholes. I strongly welcome the Bill.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I did not intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who did not like having his leg pulled about the fact that the Labour party constantly harps on the need for good roads in its own localities while constantly criticising the Government's overall policy of increasing road building.
I used to live in Scotland. For three years, I lived by the beautiful River Tweed, and I assure Opposition Members that I shall vote for any measure that will ensure that Scotland has more good roads and that I can visit Scotland more often and more easily. None the less, it is absurd of the Labour party—and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats —to produce policy documents day after day that seem to suggest that good roads are not a good idea, and that we should restrict road building and spend all the money on public transport or on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with his outrageous suggestion without quoting his source chapter and verse. Where on earth has the Labour party in Scotland said that it does not want to invest in the roads network?

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman talks as if the Labour party in Scotland is different from the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is.

Mr. Bruce: I am glad to hear that it is. The Library has a file marked "Labour party policies". Of course, they are different from the policies of the Labour party in Scotland —and I do not know where the Scottish Labour party's policies are kept—but the hon. Gentleman should read that file. He will find that the Labour party has repeatedly attacked the Government's road investment plans.
There is ample evidence to suggest that more and better roads are needed and no evidence to suggest that the more roads one has, the more cars there will be. Many people are rightly concerned about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and all the noxious gases that come out of the back of cars, and we want to reduce those emissions. However, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the worst pollution comes from stationary cars running their engines, and that roads allowing people to move from A to B are the best solution.
There is another important factor. Good roads—good links between urban centres—allow diversification. Jobs and trade and industry are kept out of city centres. At the last general election, I had the honour to vote for my hon. Friend the Member for Kirklees—I was one of his constituents.

Mr. Riddick: Colne Valley.

Mr. Bruce: I am sorry, Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). My hon. Friend described the roads in Kirklees. He should come down to south Dorset for his holidays and have a look at the road network. There is only one trunk road in the whole of Dorset, let alone my constituency. We need greater investment. The bad road network has an effect on the economy of my area: it is the reason given by various companies, including the Ministry of Defence, for not siting jobs in my constituency. I hope that the Bill will result in greater investment in roads.
Having emphasised my positive attitude to increased road building, I ought to express my unhappiness with the Government's position on toll roads. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that toll roads would be additional. We all know very well what happens when one is trying to build a new road. If one is lucky, there is a single best route, and it is often difficult to find any sort

of route. Once a toll road has been built in a particular area, the chances of the Government building their own road are more or less destroyed.
The road fund licence was rightly originally set up to provide for the user to pay for roads. In fact, we have gained far more from the road fund licence than is ever spent on roads. That balance should be redressed. The problem with toll roads is that one needs a large amount of financing in advance. That would be acceptable if it meant that, in some clever way, the Government were getting their roads built cheaply and quickly with a view eventually to taking them over. I rather believe, however, that the opposite will happen. Tolls cost a great deal to collect. That has been shown——

Mr. Home Robertson: indicated assent.

Mr. Bruce: I am glad that I am taking the hon. Member for East Lothian with me. Not only do tolls cost money to collect; their collection slows down the traffic. Take an extremely good road and stick a toll booth on it and one finds traffic jams occurring just when one is hoping to get the traffic moving through as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile, the money that one collects on a road comes long after one's investment in it. Our experience of toll bridges tells us that when one sets up a company and establishes a sinking fund, that fund simply gets larger and larger. The interest payments are not met by the tolls. If wonderful schemes can be found to overcome that, fair enough, but I believe that if we want more roads—and I certainly do—taxation is the way to achieve the aim. If we wish also to look after the environment, the most sensible course is to take the money from petrol tax. This should also reduce the consumption of petrol by making it more expensive and by persuading people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. I must give a thumbs down to the prospect of tolls, but with the proviso that if private enterprise can get rid of the problems that I have outlined, we should not prevent that from happening. As a free marketeer, I would support that.
It is extremely important that the Government are tackling the difficult problem of ensuring that roads are not dug up consecutively by different people. If two or three different utilities intend to carry out the same kind of work in the same place, it makes sense to use one excavation. That would reduce inconvenience, and the parts of the Bill that deal with that are extremely good. Making use of one excavation would also speed up reinstatements. We all want that to happen, but not if costs increase or if the process is slowed down.
The definition of emergency work in the Bill is too narrow. We should not exclude the unplanned breakdown repair. The Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 defines emergency works which include works to restore loss of service and works to prevent substantial loss of utility. If a sewer has collapsed outside a house and sewage is backing up into someone's garden and beginning to flow around, that may not constitute a danger to life, but it is a danger to amenity.
What happens if a telephone cable becomes defective and there is a seven-day delay before someone can dig up the road to discover the problem? That cable may be connected to the telephone of the little old lady about whom hon. Members always talk or it may be connected


to the stock exchange. Enormous problems can arise when telephone cables and other cables break down beneath roads.
Cable television lines will often carry telecommunications equipment. Many councils are against the installation of televison cables and there may be elements in the Bill that will allow councils to prevent the installation of such cables.
Recently, an old lead waterpipe from the road to my house split. We had to set up a temporary warning sign in the road so that our plumber could turn off the water to allow maintenance to be carried out on the pipe which was on my property. My road boundary is going to be pushed back. The stopcock used to be on my property 50 years ago, but over the years it has moved into the road. If that waterpipe breaks, as it is bound to do over the next 10 or 20 years, I would be unhappy to think that I had helped to pass a Bill that prevented emergency work from being carried out to reconnect a water supply to my property and leave my family high and dry. A council could impose a one-year ban on digging up a new road surface, but that should not be inflexible. We should be able to allow a new road to be broken into in certain circumstances.
We must also consider the way in which the street authority is defined in the Bill because there may be complications. For example most district councils in Dorset take the agency for the highway from the county council. It should be clear who should be keeping the records.
The question of the cost of the register to the councils is important, particularly when we are trying to keep down community charges. It is easy to say that the fees will pay for everything. However, an examination of the accounts of Weymouth and Portland will show that those councils are supposed to get full reimbursement from the highways authority, but they actually spend thousands of pounds more than they receive back from the county council. The planning department is also supposed to be reimbursed a massive amount for fees, but it costs the charge payers thousands of pounds to run the planning authority. It is important to ensure that we keep costs down and that we do not pass them on to the community charge payers.
This is a good Bill, and only some minor aspects need to be reviewed. I hope that they will be keenly considered in Committee. I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) referred to a toll bridge with a sinking fund which continues to sink. It seems obvious that he is talking about the Humber bridge which, as I remember, was commissioned by the then Labour Government just before the by-election in Hull, North. I recollect that the choice of that bridge, of course, bore no relationship to the election and was, of course, carefully funded by the Labour Government on transport and financial grounds. That is why the fund continues to sink. Perhaps we should note that, significantly, no prestige bridges are currently being built across the Ribble valley.
I shall confine my remarks to part III, which deals with street works in England and Wales. Street works have of late brought misery to many of my constituents. Five per cent. of the working population of Gravesham travel to work in London by road, almost entirely on the A2. Over

the past two years they have suffered continual disruption —the hard shoulders have been put in; the road has been resurfaced in parts; the barriers have been built and renovated and the disused railway bridges at Pepper Hill near Northfleet have been removed. All this marvellous work is evidence of the Government's record road programme, but the resultant misery has made the improvement pill rather difficult for local people to swallow. For example, the recent removal of the disused railway bridges at Pepper Hill was programmed for January and February of this year. Winter is a dangerous time of year to restrict traffic lanes on major roads. What happens when one tempts fate? It snowed heavily. The traffic on the A2 was confined to two lanes and queues built up in the rush hour back to Scalers Hill in the east. Motorists coming westward came off the A2 at Marling Cross and pushed through the entire urban area of Gravesend and Northfleet, south of the old road.
Only last September, Gravesham borough council agreed its winter emergency plan with Kent county council. In the event, the traffic coming off the A2 went down side roads that were not prepared for salting or gritting, as main roads are. The result was chaos for my constituents in the residential areas of south Gravesend and Northfleet. I presume that the Department of Transport advised the local highways authority—Kent county council. Apparently, the county council did not advise its highways agent in the area—Gravesham borough council. The borough council has considerable highways experience in that area of the borough, so the population and Gravesham borough council had 10 days' notice of the works—from the date that the Department of Transport issued its press release. I understand that Kent county council is now taking steps to remedy that procedural failing.
The example highlights the importance of developing a computerised street works register to co-ordinate such works. The Department of Transport is to be congratulated on its initiative to fund such a development. The co-ordination of street works is vital off the motorways and trunk roads, because it is there that disruptive works by other public utilities are to be found.
Every hon. Member has his or her own horror stories. I have mine, but, in fairness, they have been minimised by the good relations between most public utilities and Gravesham borough council. The potential for continual or widespread disruption is immense.
Gravesham borough council, for example, decided to carry out smart repaving of the pedestrianised high street in front of the old town hall only to find that Seeboard, the local electricity company, planned to dig up the newly paved road to relay a high voltage cable. Fortunately, the borough council was able to reschedule its work until after the electricity board's work. On another occasion, British Telecom decided to dig up the Wrotham road in Gravesend. Almost simultaneously, British Gas decided to dig up the immediately parallel Windmill street. At a late stage, Gravesham borough council was notified and realised the impending effect on local traffic. It managed to encourage British Gas to delay and thus avoided chaos. In a more serious case, British Gas proposed to lay a new gas main right along the main traffic thoroughfare through the central shopping area of Gravesend. Gravesham borough council prevailed on British Gas to hold on so that a pedestrianisation experiment could be developed to take advantage of the inevitable major disruption.
In all those cases, advance co-ordination would have produced a mutually agreed works programme to minimise public inconvenience and the waste of resources. Voluntary co-ordination has had its successes, as shown by the Gravesham cases. The Bill will make a quantum leap in requiring adequate advance notification and giving statutory powers to the highway authorities to determine when such work can be carried out in a co-ordinated fashion.
All our constituents have bitter experiences of road works. Too often, the restoration of the pavements and road surfaces after repair—especially the interim temporary surfaces—has been done to a poor and uneven standard. All hon. Members know of cases of elderly constituents who have tripped and fallen over the bodged repairs. Too often, apparatus, equipment and supplies are left lying round creating a hazard. I am encouraged to see detailed clauses about the signposting, safety and supervision of street works which are vital if we are to make progress in this matter. This replacement for the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 is long overdue and thus very welcome. I look forward to supporting its passage through the House.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: In opening the debate, the Minister of State was honest enough to acknowledge that the Bill contains two wholly disparate measures. It seems to be becoming a fashion with the Government. In the Road Traffic Bill, we dealt with road safety in part I and with the introduction of red route schemes in part II, with no obvious link. In this Bill, we find the uncontroversial and generally approved street works proposals combined with measures introducing private toll roads. Clearly, that is a strategy to get fringe schemes through the House on the back of sensible measures. I sympathise with the frustration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes). In both cases, the controversial part of the Bill comes from the outer reaches of the Conservative party and is flashy in appearance, but lacking in strategy and substance.
The construction of parts I and II is a triumph of narrow ideology over common sense. It is, like the red routes, an example of a solution that is wholly inappropriate to the crisis. The Minister sought to argue that congestion was the link between the two sets of proposals. That was a superficial argument. He could just as easily have linked rail building proposals with the Bill if that were to be the justification.
I should have thought that the Minister would have learnt by now that he cannot depend on the private sector to improve our transport infrastructure because the private sector will not be persuaded or coerced into taking the role that should properly be played by central Government and public funds. We need look no further than the fiasco of the channel tunnel rail link to know that the Government should be investing in transport and building a proper planned network of rail and road and not hiving off bits of it and hoping that the private sector will pick up the pieces.
As my hon. Friends, without exception, have said, the Labour party has serious objections to parts I and II. Giving the green light to private roads is yet another

example of a piecemeal policy and it will further hinder the development of the integrated transport strategy for which this country so desperately calls out. When new roads are to be built, they should be built on the basis of proven need. The Bill, however, seeks to encourage road building on the basis of opportunity for profit.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Ruddock: No, I shall not give way as the hon. Gentleman took up my time.
As the Government admit, the market will determine the construction of private roads. If enough people are willing to pay for new roads to avoid existing congestion, the Government will support the building of a private tolled road, irrespective of the effects on other transport planning or on residents in the area, or on broader strategic considerations.
Even more ludicrously, the Government's consultation paper, "New Roads by New Means", suggests that
there is no way of saying in advance how many or which privately-financed toll roads would be viable. Only the open market can decide that, and once a tolled road is constructed, the market can decide whether it is a commercial success.
That breathtaking assertion begs the question: supposing the road is not a commercial success? Will we have carved up thousands of acres of countryside just to let the market show that there is no demand for a toll road? The Government do not suggest that British Rail lay thousands of miles of track on the off-chance that the new route might be commercially successful. If they did, they could find that the market was very welcoming.
However, if the private road is successful and makes a profit, as the Select Committee on Transport noted, the consequence will be more roads than would otherwise be built under the public sector. We cannot treat our transport infrastructure like a brand of washing powder. Resources are too precious and the investment in infrastructure too great to be so cavalier.
In fairness to the Minister, I invite the Government to quantify the contribution to the relief of congestion to be made by private roads. He will be aware of his Department's prediction that road traffic will increase by between 83 and 142 per cent. by 2025. What percentage increase in this country's road space will derive from the building of private toll roads? If the Minister makes that calculation, he will know that there is no solution to the transport crisis faced in Britain other than Government investment in roads and public transport.
We are committed to investment in a proper infrastructure, including both road and rail. We do not rule out examining systems of charging, but they should be for the purpose of greater investment, not for making profit per se.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I have heard the hon. Lady say several times that the Government should pay. She will have heard what I said about not having toll roads, but instead increasing taxation on petrol. The Labour party constantly says that we should not finance roads by tolls. How much extra will Labour invest in roads?

Ms. Ruddock: I intend to deal with the hon. Gentleman's question as I continue my speech, so he should not interrupt me again.
We put concern for the environment, providing access and promoting the passage of people and goods at the heart of our policy, rather than private property. Nowhere


do we say, as the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) said in his speech, that we oppose good roads. We have provided a critical analysis of the potential for increasing road space vis-a-vis the increase predicted in car ownership and use. That is a valid analysis. There is no way that the hon. Member for Dorset, South or any other Conservative Member can demonstrate that it is possible to concrete over sufficient tracts of British land to deal with the projected increases in road traffic. The Labour party is not against roads, but is in favour of an integrated transport system that gives proper emphasis to the environment and the provision of public transport and deals with congestion problems.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, we are particularly concerned about the environmental consequences of parts I and II. It was obvious from the contribution of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that Conservative Members are, too, the moment that their constituents' interests are threatened. However, the Government's position remains unsatisfactory. The Minister says that private roads will be subject to the same environmental safeguards as public roads, but the current environmental assessment, carried out under the Highways Act 1980, is limited in scope and is not required to address the broader effects of roads on land use or the countryside.
I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said earlier. The Department's current road programme threatens more than 100 sites of special scientific interest, about 30 National Trust properties, numerous areas of outstanding natural beauty and the Peak District national park. That catalogue is hardly a recommendation of the environmental sensitivity of the Department of Transport.
Government assurances are insufficient and the concerns expressed to us by the Council for the Protecion of Rural England and others appear more than justified. In Committee, we intend to table amendments to ensure that environmental considerations are written into the contract between the concessionaire and the authority, and that concessionaires are required to meet the highest environmental standards. Without an explicit requirement to address the environmental impact, we fear that a concessionaire may not adequately fulfil those responsibilities.
We intend to deal with many other issues in Committee. We shall look carefully at land use issues and what safeguards will be available to prevent the exploitation of land by developers. The Minister must accept that when a road is being built for profit, the potential for profit must be maximised, which must involve a potential conflict between development plans, and planning and countryside protection policies.
We are also extremely concerned about the costs of policing the roads. We strongly believe that if a private developer is building a road for profit rather than need, the associated costs should be paid by the developer rather than the authority or, indirectly, by the poll tax payer.
We shall also voice our concerns about the secrecy of concessionaire agreements. At present, the contents of the agreement would be known only to the concessionaire and the highway authority—in most cases, the Secretary of State. Even the local authority would not know the terms of the agreement, which is clearly nonsense and against the public interest. We propose to tackle that problem in Committee.
We very much welcome the long overdue provisions in parts III and IV. I add my congratulations to the members of the highways, utilities and authorities committee working party, who have worked so long and hard during the past five years, and to Professor Horne, who wrote the report on which that section of the Bill is based. There is a great need for a flexible and modern system of organising street works to accommodate ever increasing amounts of traffic and increasing pressure by utilities. There is unanimous agreement that the old system, based on the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, was clumsy, bureaucratic and inconvenient. With 3 million holes being dug a year, street works have become a major factor in congestion and delays in cities.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Ruddock: No, I shall not give way because I shall run out of time.
The costs of congestion are estimated to be £15 billion a year and the cost of delay due to street works is put at £55 million a year. Clearly, it will benefit everyone, including business, to reduce that cost.
The Bill will depend, to a greater extent than usual, on regulations to implement its provisions. Therefore, it will be more adaptable to new circumstances and developments in technology. In this instance, we have no argument with that approach.

Mr. Riddick: rose——

Ms. Ruddock: I shall not give way.
We acknowledge that the Government accepted in another place the need for street authorities and utilities, when carrying out their duties, to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities, but we shall press in Committee for more specific undertakings. We shall also seek clarification of the implications that this part of the Bill will have for cyclists. We shall ask for cyclists to be given the same rights as pedestrians with regard to consultation on street works proposals. It is extremely important, we believe, that the needs of all vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities, be given proper consideration.
Clause 70 causes us some concern, as, indeed, it gives rise for concern among other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). This clause was not subject to the same extensive consultation under Home as was the rest of the Bill, and the utilities and street authorities are very concerned about its implications. In Committee, we shall follow that through. It is felt that the whole package is a delicately constructed balance between the interests of the utilities and those of the highway authorities, and the power to charge upsets that balance. We shall table an amendment to ensure that it is clearly understood that this is a reserve power only.
The Minister ended his speech by accusing Labour of seeking to raise taxes and to build fewer roads. He completely misses the point. We seek, and the Government should seek, to enable people and goods to be moved as efficiently as possible by the least environmentally damaging means. That is why we reject private toll roads. Government Members have provided no evidence that such road proposals will substantially relieve congestion, or that they will aid freight movement, or that they will not have a serious and damaging impact on the environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich


(Mrs. Dunwoody), in what was undoubtedly the most exciting and pertinent speech of the debate, said, the Bill appears to be an elaborate joke. The commercial advantages of private toll roads have not been demonstrated and fundamental questions have been left unanswered. I trust that the Minister will respond positively to the challenge that my hon. Friend's remarks set for him.
In combining two measures, the Government have put at risk our co-operation. Only our eagerness to see the very worth while and much-overdue measures arising from the Horne report implemented prevents us from pushing this matter to the vote. However, I promise the Government that they cannot expect such an easy passage in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Chope.

Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard anything that is out of order.

Mr. Riddick: Perhaps you could clear something up for me, Sir. As the Minister was due to start his speech at 9.40, the hon. Lady had all the time in the world to give way to me. This is supposed to be a debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady decided not to give way, and I have now called the Minister.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have had a good debate, although at times it has been somewhat low key. It is symptomatic of the Opposition's performance that they have convictions about the issue of transport but do not have the courage of their convictions. That will be reflected in what happens later.
I am very grateful for the constructive and supportive contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), Swindon (Mr. Coombs), Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). They have added to the debate a quality that will be much appreciated.
I shall deal first with the part of the Bill that concerns street works. I welcome the general support on both sides of the House for parts III and IV of the measure. We believe that the provisions in these parts will be widely welcomed in the country, and will lead to better planned and better executed street works. The outdated procedures prescribed by the Public Utilities and Street Works Act 1950 no longer serve their purpose. Let me give one example. The requirement to serve notices in writing on all the authorities involved before starting work results in unnecessary bureaucracy, with some 4 million holes each year being subject to the requirements of the 1950 Act.
The present framework is seriously inadequate when it comes to the state of repair of roads. The 1950 Act allows highway authorities to elect to do the permanent reinstatement of the upper levels of the roads themselves at a utility's expense. No time limit is laid down for the highway authority to carry out the reinstatement in those cases. As a result, temporary reinstatements done by

utilities are often left for far too long in a totally unsatisfactory condition, a point made vividly by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley and others. Labour-controlled authorities have a lot to answer for. In Kirklees, not only is there money available from the utilities for the repair of the holes in roads, but there is also a substantial amount of money available through the standard spending assessment to be invested in highway maintenance. It is clear from what my hon. Friend said that that investment is not being made.
As we have heard, the Bill will remove the confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy involved in the present arrangements for street works. It will allow the introduction of clear national standards on matters such as the signing and guarding of works, the training of those involved in works and the quality of reinstatement of roads by utilities. For the first time it will allow the effective co-ordination of street works activity.
Various points of detail have been raised in the debate. I cannot answer them all, but I shall try to deal with some. One issue concerned the definition contained in clause 54, which was referred to by several hon. Members. Parts III and IV of the Bill regulate all works in streets in England and Wales and roads in Scotland, and both terms include the footway, or what the man in the street would call the pavement. Particular attention will be paid to the needs of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users when detailed requirements are prescribed under the Bill. I hope that that is of interest to hon. Members.
There were comments about emergency works. To put the provisions in context, it is worth reminding the House that the Horne committee found that 35 per cent. of all works notified were notified as emergency works. That was based on the evidence of local authorities given in 1983. That showed the extent of the abuse. In many cases a majority of the works carried out in individual council areas were deemed to be emergency works. Therefore, a new definition is called for. In order to be workable, it has to be a tight definition.
Because of the exemptions given for emergency works, which clause 48 limits to the avoidance of danger to persons or to property, there will be cases falling short of emergencies where an undertaker has to take action before the normal period of advance notice has expired. Some examples have been given in the debate. In some cases, such as the restoration of a supply or service, or works necessary to avoid substantial loss to an undertaker, considerably shorter advance notice requirements may be appropriate. After further consultations with highway authorities and utilities, suitable provision will be made in regulations containing the notice requirements.
Points were raised about charging for the occupation of road space. I assure the House that it is not the Government's intention to bring the power into effect straight away. We have said that we would prefer to wait to see how the other controls operate. It is a reserve power, but nevertheless a useful power, because it is a reminder to utilities that associated with the works which they carry out is a cost to the public and to the road user in time wasted and inconvenience. In the same way as lane rental has been successful in road contracts, the power to charge for occupation or road space will concentrate minds well.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Do the Government intend to introduce a system of charging for all undertakers, if one undertaker


has failed significantly to deliver, in the early period after the introduction of the legislation? In other words, will all undertakers be punished by the system of fee paying if only one is found to be seriously at fault?

Mr. Chope: The Government would look at that issue from the point of view of the consumer and the road user. If it is clear that there are abuses, we shall wish to implement the powers contained in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon also referred to the opening of streets. That can include lifting a manhole cover, which could be quite disruptive in the middle of a busy carriageway. However, it will be possible to make suitable exemptions from the requirements of the Bill for such street works, where necessary.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) referred to bringing proceedings for offences. The 1950 Act confined the ability to bring proceedings for an offence subject to a criminal penalty to an authority, body or person having an interest in the performance of the obligation in question. We think that it is right that the Bill should not limit enforcement of the street works provision in the same way because some of the duties in the Bill, such as the duty of undertakers to co-operate or the duty to avoid unnecessary obstruction, are not owed to particular authorities or persons but are of a general nature. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to limit the ability to bring proceedings for breach of a statutory obligation to particular interested persons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley made an interesting point when he questioned the provisions of clause 90. I am sure that we shall return to that issue in Committee because, as presently drafted, there is effectively an exemption to the local authority goods and services legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will need a lot of convincing that this Bill should contain such a provision.
Parts I and II deal with new roads and private finance. I am not really surprised that the Opposition have been reluctant to give support or enthusiasm to those provisions because they are, after all, radical proposals. They break the long tradition in this country of roads being paid for by the taxpayer or the charge payer rather than by the user. In recent months and years, we have found that the Opposition never take kindly to fresh, imaginative and radical thinking.
The Government are not alone in seeing the private sector as a likely source of finance for the roads of the future. The signs are that in many European countries, and in many parts of the United States of America, the same policies are being developed—not only in countries such as France, Italy and Spain, which have a long history of tolled motorways, but in more surprising places such as Germany and the new democracies in eastern Europe. By daring to challenge the conventional wisdom, once again this Government are pointing the way forward to the rest of the world.
We have no intention of abandoning the traditional public sector roads programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) has said, trunk road expenditure is now at record levels, but even the greatly expanded programme that we introduced in "Roads for Prosperity" will leave many demands unmet. The public purse is not bottomless, and all the money in it comes from taxpayers and charge payers.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As my hon. Friend knows, the Birmingham northern relief road will be the first private motorway in Britain and a large part of it will pass through my constituency. I warmly welcome both that private sector road and the measures in the Bill that will assist that process. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new arrangements that are proposed in the Bill will speed up the process of bringing private roads into being, and can he assure me that the Birmingham northern relief road is very much on target for opening in the mid- 1990s?

Mr. Chope: Certainly, the Birmingham orthern relief road is very much on target for opening in the mid-1990s——

Mr. Snape: In a private moment, perhaps the Minister will point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that that matter was discussed earlier in a fair amount of detail. Furthermore, the Birmingham northern relief road first appeared in the Government's road programme in 1980, but it is still no nearer commencement. If the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood had been present for just one moment of this debate instead of strolling into the Chamber 11 minutes before it will end, he would know those basic and simple facts.

Mr. Chope: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has been serving on a Committee elsewhere in the House and that that is why he has been unable to participate in this debate.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no interest in going slow on the Birmingham northern relief road and we hope to be able to announce the successful tenderer in May. There has been a slight delay because of today's announcement that the western orbital route will be subject to private tender and it is right that the tenderers for the Birmingham northern relief road should have a chance to consider whether they wish to adjust their tenders as a result.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Opposition Members were keen to say that neither in "Looking to the future" nor in "An earthly chance" does the Labour party have a policy which suggests that it is anti-road. It is not suggesting that more money will come from the taxpayer or the Government for more roads; it is saying that it wants to see money switched from roads to public transport. It is difficult to get firm policies, but in its transport policy the Labour party says:
The Roads White Paper will be reviewed. Road and public transport developments will be assessed on a common basis".
That suggests that it will switch from roads to public transport.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. The kindest thing that one can say about the Opposition's policy is that it is muddled. My evidence for saying that is that about last autumn the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose presence is sorely missed today, announced that the Opposition's policy was to transfer resources which were to be spent on the roads programme to rail and other forms of infrastructure investment. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is nodding in agreement.
On 18 May 1989, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, responding to the roads White Paper, said:
We welcome the Government's acceptance of the fact that the economic and social cost to the nation of chronic congestion is such that urgent action in the form of a doubling of present road expenditure is needed."—[Official Report, 18 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 484.]
There is much evidence to suggest that the Opposition want it both ways. They want to suggest to their friends in their constituencies who want new investment in roads that such investment would continue under a Labour Government while at the same time suggesting to their friends in British Rail that even the record amount being invested by this Government in British Rail will be exceeded at no additional cost to the taxpayer under a Labour Administration.
There has been much discussion about whether the new road schemes and procedures would be any quicker than the existing procedures. The Government hope that they will be quicker and we believe that we have reasonable grounds for expecting that. Unlike the private sector, the Government are unable to dedicate resources to any one particular scheme, so that it can take time to reach inquiry. The promoter of a scheme will have a strong incentive in the form of profit to undertake the necessary preparatory work as quickly as possible. The private sector may choose to buy land on a voluntary basis at above market value if it were in the longer term interest of the project. That is something that the public sector cannot do. Therefore, the overall procedure could well be quicker. All those who want a quicker implementation of the roads programme are in tune with public demand.
The Government have already made substantial progress, but it is apparent that we need even greater investment in roads and there is no way in which all the necessary money will be forthcoming from the taxpayer. One vivid example of my proposition that it is better to have a toll road than no road is the Skye bridge, referred to by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The Scottish Office is currently evaluating tenders from the three consortia, and it is hoped that the winner of the competition will be announced in April.
Subject to the enactment of the Bill and the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, the bridge could be completed during 1994. By comparison, a bridge could not be provided from public funds for perhaps 20 years or more without displacing other worthwhile projects which are already in the public progamme. Therefore, the local community will be able to enjoy all the benefits of a fixed link much earlier than would otherwise be the case.

Ms. Ruddock: Time is running out and I am anxious to ensure that the Minister does not fail to answer the question that I put to him. It is important that we hear from him tonight what increase in Britain's road space he envisages from the provision of private toll roads. How does that compare with the increases in road traffic, as predicted by his Department?

Mr. Chope: I am sure that there will be plenty of time in Committee to deal with the hon. Lady's question and similar questions.
There are those who claim that the private sector does not have the competence to carry out the task which we shall ask it to undertake under the legislation, that it is in

it only to make a quick buck, or that it will have no regard to safety or the environment. One might say that those are the same old tawdry arguments that the Opposition have used against every private sector initiative that the Government have introduced. However, compared with the Government's major privatisation and deregulation measures, the measures that we have debated tonight are relatively modest.
We are not selling off motorways or privatising the highway authorities, although some of my hon. Friends believe that we should do just that. The private consortia will derive their powers from the highway authority. The highway authority will be answerable for authorisation of the route, for its environmental impact and for its compatibility with other land use objectives. The concessionaires' role will be to raise the finance, design and build the road and operate and maintain it once it is open. That is very much the role of the toll-operating concessionaires in continental Europe, except that we propose fully private sources of finance and to take free market principles a step or two further.
It has been suggested that the measures can be implemented only at the expense of the environment. That is absolute nonsense. The new roads to be promoted by private entrepreneurs will be subject to just the same planning and inquiry regime as the existing roads programme. I was asked whether these new roads would attract development. Almost every new road attracts development, but it is up to the local authorities, the planning authorities and ultimately the planning inspectorate to decide whether a planning application should be successful.
Indeed, when putting forward their proposals for the new east coast road recently, several local authorities relied to a great extent on private sector developers to help finance the cost of the road. The hon. Member for Deptford nods in agreement. Clearly, she believes that that is a reasonable way to proceed.

Ms. Ruddock: rose——

Hon. Members: No.

Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry, but that cannot pass. I said to the Minister tonight that clearly a conflict can arise if a company seeks to maximise profit. A conflict can arise in the land use proposals. We are all too familiar with the fact that local authorities' objections are frequently overturned by the Department.

Mr. Chope: They are not frequently overturned, but when they are overturned, it is done on good planning grounds. That is because the Department has to operate in a quasi-judicial capacity. If it did not act properly, it would find itself on the wrong end of a High Court challenge.
In conclusion, I remind the House of the massive investment which the Government will continue to make in the road infrastructure in Britain. Capital spending on roads has more than doubled since the last year of the Labour Government. Progress on new construction, trunk roads and motorways is extremely good. By the end of the current financial year we shall have completed some 40 schemes, adding some 140 miles of new or improved roads to the national network in 12 months. We shall also have started 54 schemes with a length of over 150 miles. We plan to maintain that record level of progress next year when we shall start work on a further 53 new schemes, including


three motorway widenings and 19 bypasses, covering some 172 miles. When the Bill is approved, even more investment in our road infrastructure will be facilitated.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act from the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Conal Gregory: May I ask the Minister to say a word about historic cities such as York which have suffered unduly from the disruption caused by street works. Those who work——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting., the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords] [Money]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Gregory: In historic cities such as York a number of agencies have disrupted commerce and tourism for considerable periods. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that adequate funds will be provided for historic cities so that the continuous disruption of recent years caused by street works can be avoided? York's city council has sought to reduce that disruption as much as possible. It will be helped by this measure. However, we should be grateful for such an assurance from my hon. Friend at this important juncture in the passing of the Bill.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be appropriate funding for local authorities under the provisions of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

NEW ROADS AND STREET WORKS BILL [Lords]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the charging of tolls for the use of a new special road in respect of which an order is made under the Act,
(b) the charging of fees for occupation of the highway (in Scotland, the road), and
(c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received under the Act by a Minister of the Crown. —[Mr. Wood.]

Sea Fisheries

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this debate must end at 11.30 and that a great many hon. Members wish to participate in it. I intend to give precedence to those hon. Members who were not called to speak in a similar debate on 14 February. However, I hope that all those on both the Front and the Back Benches who are called to speak will be brief so that as many hon. Members as possible can participate in the debate.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to
move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 335), dated 26th February 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be annulled.
This statutory instrument——

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the Order Paper which makes it clear that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its
consideration of the amending regulations that we are dealing with tonight which amend the principal regulations—the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations which we have reported. The amending regulations arise out of our recommendations. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find time to debate, in addition to these regulations, the principal regulations. We have reported the principal regulations. Our report is in the Vote Office. I mention that in case hon. Members are confused. The Committee asked the Government for information about the exemptions that are not clarified in the instrument that we are to debate tonight. We cannot report it because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we have to wait for a memorandum from the Government under the terms of our Standing Order. I hope that you will not mind me drawing that matter to the attention of the House. I know that we shall debate the merits rather than the technicalities, but the two are closely linked.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is the Chairman of the Committee, has done the House a service by saying that.

Mr. Morley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. He carries out essential work by going through European Community documents.
This measure is of vital interest to the fishing industry. It is being implemented retrospectively, so it is important to deal with the effect that it is having on the industry. It clarifies the legal enforcement of the Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations, though I doubt whether it will clarify the way in which they will be enforced by those who have a duty to do so. It also takes into account the exemptions for those boats that use 110 mm mesh nets, as belatedly agreed with the Commission by the Minister. On behalf of the Opposition, I would not quibble with exemptions, but the whole basis and effect on the industry of the regulations should be brought to the attention of the House and debated in depth.
The regulations were introduced to reduce effort on our fish stocks, and we have no quibble with the Government in trying to meet such objectives. We are concerned with the way that it is being done. I have consistently argued on

behalf of the Opposition that effort must be reduced and I have supported conservation measures that may be necessary, and hard on fishermen who must implement them. But while I accept that conservation measures are essential, they must be supported by the fishermen and be seen to be to their advantage. I am not convinced that the eight-day tie-up regulation meets those objectives.
During the debate on the take-note motion on 13 December 1990, I expressed concern lest the then proposed 10-day lay-up rule would be inflexible and dangerous. Tonight I heard from Scottish fishermen, some of whom are listening to the debate, about the inflexible way in which those regulations are being imposed, contrary to assurances that were given by the Minister of State, Scottish Office. We heard how many of them had been forced to stay at sea fishing in bad weather, how many of their families and the community life of their crews had been disrupted, how many boats could not steam to home ports for resupply and repair without being caught by the rules and how many boats had had to run for port to comply with the regulations in bad weather in situations which made it difficult for them to get into port, so endangering their ships and crews.
The implications have a knock-on effect for local economies. Hon. Members representing fishing constituencies will give further details of the effects of the regulations on their communities. We are speaking not of insignificant effects. It is clear from the excellent brief supplied by Grampian regional council that in that area 10,000 jobs are linked directly to the fishing industry. Fish for the north-east ports is vital for the local processing industries, and the same is true of areas such as Humberside. There is concern that the proposed eight-day rule will make it hard for producer organisations to regulate landings and will cause severe price and supply distruptions.
In financial terms, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has calculated that the tie-up rule could reduce fishing days by 72 days. That would represent a reduction in effort of about 38 per cent. It is calculated that, on that basis, average wages of fishermen could be down by about £6,000 a year, and gross profits would be slashed by 99 per cent. Differing working patterns may reduce those figures, but the net result would inevitably mean cuts in income.
The NFFO also argues that the approach adopted by the Government, and agreed by the Council of Ministers, could be in breach of articles 28 and 39 of the Treaty of Rome. The regulations contain defined objectives, including the rational development of production, the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour, a fair standard of living, the stabilising of markets and the availability of supplies at reasonable prices. I claim that the regulations do not meet those objectives.
There is a crucial difference between Britain and other countries whose boats are subject to the restrictions. Other countries are covered by the EC decommissioning scheme and are taking advantage of it. That puts the situation facing them in a different light. They are already in a scheme that is reducing fleet size and effort and is providing compensation for the industry. The only compensation that our fishermen are offered is bankruptcy and the dole queue.
We must contrast the situation in fishing with the comparable position in farming. Over-capacity exists in


farming. One scheme on offer is set-aside, giving farmers financial compensation for reducing effort. Like decomissioning, the bulk of farmers' costs are met through the EC, in that case 60 per cent. Last year the scheme cost Britain£21·6 million, close to the estimate of £25 million that a decommissioning scheme would cost.
That scheme is subject to the same Fontainebleau agreement which we are told makes a decommissioning scheme unviable. Why should farmers enjoy such a scheme while fishermen are denied it? The only difference that I can see is that a decommissioning scheme is a one-off scheme and hence cheaper than an on-going commitment to a set-aside scheme. Its EC contribution is 10 per cent. higher, which is hardly an argument for ruling it out.
Although the measure gives the option of 110 mm nets in terms of exemption from the eight-day tie-up, the Scottish mixed fishery fleets are most affected. This is a national issue and there is broad agreement between the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
As I have said, fishing effort must be reduced and it is significant that the former head of the EC fisheries conservation department, Mr. Michael Holden, made it clear in conversations with me that efforts must be reduced by restructuring through decommissioning to match capacity to availability.
The industry is prepared to play its part, given the chance to develop fishing as a prosperous and sustainable industry. I have said that I am concerned about the number of discards from 90 mm diamond mesh and about rule-breaking by some fishermen, whether by falsifying the area in which they say fish have been caught, by using techniques to close mesh, or by taking high by-catches from prawn trawls.
I am greatly encouraged by the positive and responsible approach of fishermen to these problems. The Minister would do the industry far more good if he argued in the Council of Ministers for measures such as the option of fishing with square mesh panels. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has strongly advocated an 80 mm square mesh panel with a 90 mm diamond mesh, and research on reduced discards is encouraging. Why not have a comparison between that system and a 90–90 mm square mesh and diamond mesh option, or even a 90–100 mm option to see the effects on catches and discards? We could press for dispensation from the eight-day rule on the basis of the most suitable configuration.
The issue of EC minimum mesh sizes still needs to be resolved and the Minister has the option and the opportunity in the forthcoming year to table proposals and to amend the present scheme. I advocate the fishermen's proposals for the adoption of a one-net rule, the introduction of square mesh panels on prawn trawls, an increase in the minimum landing size of whiting to 30 cm, and a licensing regime for all fishing boats. Those are some of many measures that should be incorporated in a proper national fishing industry.
I accept that progress on discards and conservation gear should have been made long ago, but if we are to have a sustainable fishing industry, the Government must be supported by the fishermen. The need for a decommissioning scheme is accepted by every sector of the industry and has attracted universal cross-party support from hon. Members with fishing interests. The Government's arguments against such a policy do not stand critical examination and I do not think that Ministers, who should

know better, have their heart in their standard and discredited defence of their policy. They know that a decommissioning scheme can be implemented and made to work properly.
I suspect that the eight-day tie-up rule has been advocated by the Government because they do not have anything else to offer to reduce fishing efforts. In the end the scheme may not even work adequately in that sense. At best the regulations are crude, disruptive and of doubtful conservation value. At worst, they endanger lives and boats. Unless there is an adequate fisheries management policy that includes a decommissioning scheme, the industry will continue to stagger from crisis to crisis. I am concerned that this eight-day rule will also create tragedy and grief.
So important is this measure and so great is the cross-party support for it that I offer the Government the support of the official Opposition in a non-partisan effort to construct such a scheme and speed its passage through Parliament. That is a genuine offer for a genuine problem, and I urge the Government to reconsider with extreme urgency their attitude to this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We last debated fisheries on 14 February. I recall that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said that she would like to debate these regulations, and as it was St. Valentine's day, it would have been extremely ungallant of me not to accept such a proposition, so we are debating that statutory instrument tonight. However, one would not have thought so from the speech of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), which, as he meandered round the entire course of fisheries policies, was indistinguishable from all his previous meanderings.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Curry: No. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was not interrupted. Mr. Speaker has asked us to be brief and I intend to keep to his injunction.
I want to know why Opposition Members have decided to pray against the gear option. Do they know what they are doing? It is quite curious. The Labour party is running scared in front of the Scottish Nationalists, who prayed against the original order and got a day or two ahead of the Labour party. The Labour party is now trying to catch up.
I am surprised to find the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on this motion because, of all the ports in the United Kingdom, it was Humberside which wanted the gear option most.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the point of order is as I have heard nothing which is out of order.

Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I prayed against the original regulations.

Mr. Curry: I am delighted to hear——

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred to me in his opening remarks, in the context of 14 February. His remarks were cheap, given the significance of the fisheries industry to


Scotland, and he should apologise to the House and tackle the issues which are of key importance to many people in my constituency and throughout Scotland.

Mr. Curry: I am addressing a question that many fishermen will ask—why are the Opposition praying against the gear option which I was so earnestly enjoined to obtain from Brussels? We obtained it, and if I were to accept the Opposition motion and they were to carry it, we would be left with an eight-day compulsory tie-up, with no alternative. I want to know how they think that that would be of benefit——

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose——

Mr. Curry: No, I shall not give way. Why do they think that that would benefit the United Kingdom fishing industry? It seems curious and perverse.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Curry: No. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak uninterrupted. Mr. Speaker has asked me to be brief, and I intend to be.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe went on a protracted ramble round fisheries, ports and half our agricultural policy, none of which got us anywhere.
Why did we have a tie-up? The reason is that the rule reflects scientific advice. That is where we must begin this evening. It might be unpalatable, hon. Members may not like it and it might be unwelcome, but it is the fact of the matter and the only sound basis for fisheries policy. Scientists argued, first, that the North sea and west of Scotland roundfish stocks were under great pressure, and I see that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe agrees with me. We are not in dispute about the facts.
Secondly, scientists advised that cutting quotas would not be sufficient to protect stocks. Reduced quotas cannot prevent misreporting—I do not wish to use an emotionally charged word, but everyone will know what I mean—and reduced TACs cannot prevent, and may even increase, discarding. Therefore a reduction in effort was needed—I notice that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe again agrees with me—and, in practice, less fishing.
In the light of that, the Commission proposed that vessels which had caught more than 40 per cent. of cod and haddock during the reference period should remain in port for 10 consecutive days per calendar month. That proposal applied not merely to the United Kingdom, but to Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Ireland, which are all countries that have applied decommissioning schemes. It does not appear to have saved them from this regulation.
My right hon. Friend and I said that we could support the principle of effort reduction, but that the details of the Commission's proposal required amendment. As a result —as hon. Members know—the 10 days were reduced to eight. We could not escape that regulation as it was tabled in front of us and we had to deal with it in the Council. It would not just disappear or float away and therefore we had to respond to the matter. Vessels that caught less than 100 tonnes were excluded, reducing the number affected from approximately 700 to 450.
We undertook to try to obtain a gear option. I made that promise specifically. Immediately after the meeting I

went to the Euroflats, the hotel that the fishing industry had made its base camp for the day, and said very plainly that I would try to obtain a gear option. I particularly remember the leader of the Shetlands fishermen's delegation telling me how important that was. We obtained the gear option—obtained it, moreover, before any other country did; we fulfilled the undertaking that we had given. There is an urgent need to protect the haddock stock. We have decided to allow the flexibility that will enable a monthly change between the gear option and the tie-up, which we think is the most sensitive policy.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: No. I shall be winding up the debate, and I shall respond then to any points that are made.
Let me now turn to the three main criticisms of the eight-day rule: that it is unsafe, that it is ineffective and that it is enforced too rigidly. First, let me deal with the safety issue. The argument that financial pressures will oblige fishermen to use their remaining 22 or 23 days to the full, regardless of bad weather, seems to overlook the fact that the industry's earnings are not constrained by the time that vessels can spend at sea; they are constrained by the level at which quotas are set. That constraint is not affected by the eight-day rule. Without it, indeed, quotas might have been set at a lower level. Moreover, the inspectorate has been instructed to enforce the regulations with proper regard to safety.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way on the question of safety?

Mr. Curry: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to finish my sentence? This is an important point, which has been made by many hon. Members.
The inspectorate has been instructed to enforce the regulations with proper regard to safety. No fisherman need fear proceedings if, because of genuinely severe weather, he puts into a different port from that notified, or arrives a few hours late. We are not in the business of forcing fishermen to take unnecessary risks. It would be irresponsible for those who would hype up the industry to say that all that is being done will put safety at risk, and I hope that fishermen will have more sense than to listen to such talk.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Curry: I will not give way. I intend to speak briefly so that the maximum number of hon. Members can contribute to the debate. I shall respond to interventions in my winding-up speech.
Let me deal next with the question of effectiveness. I accept that fishing in the remaining 22 or 23 days may be somewhat more intensive, and that the fish may not therefore enjoy the full benefit of the eight days. I am, however, confident that there will be a significant reduction of effort, and that must help stocks. Those who argue that the tie-up will merely lead to more intense effort, and will fail in respect of conservation, should be careful not to argue the Commission's case for an even longer tie-up next time round.
I make no apologies for our policy of rigorous enforcement. I am frequently criticised by hon. Members on the ground that aspects of our regime are being undermined—always, of course, by fishermen from other


ports. One of the great advantages of the eight-day rule is that it can be enforced firmly and fairly, and that will be our policy.
I commend the regulations to the House, and invite it to reject the Opposition's perverse and wrong-minded prayer, which gives entirely the wrong impression. The Opposition's proposals would merely imprison the industry even more drastically in a fixed set of regulations, while denying all the flexibility that we have sought to introduce and that the industry deserves.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to limit their speeches to five minutes. Although I confess that I have no authority to impose such a requirement, it would enable everyone to be called.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The regulations are a testament to our futility. We are debating an amendment to regulations that should never have been laid before Parliament—or, indeed, thought of in the first place. They show no knowledge of the industry, do nothing to achieve the desired objective, and damage safety and conservation in the fishing industry. We are debating the principle of the regulations weeks after they came into effect; we are debating them late at night, preventing the fishing industry from expressing its anger in the massive way that it should; and we are really debating only an amendment to them.
Ministers have put themselves in an impossible position by proposing the regulations. It is certainly true that the Minister has secured a gear derogation and we in Grimsby are grateful to him for that because it means that most Grimsby vessels, which would have been hard hit by the regulations, are exempted. But some of those Grimsby vessels should never have been included in the regulations in the first place. I refer to gill netters, which use 170 mm square mesh, and to long-liners. Even now, anomalies remain. I have written to the Minister about one Grimsby vessel, fishing in areas 6 and 7, which was catching cod and haddock in 1989. Now, it has changed everything and is catching prawns, but because of the date at which it changed over, it is caught by the eight-day rule.
Had the Minister not introduced the derogation for gear, he would have been legally vulnerable. Legal opinion, obtained by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, suggested that there was a strong, and almost certainly successful, case for challenging the regulations. Had the derogation not been introduced, such a case would have been successful. The Minister is saving his own skin and defending his own position.
The basic daftness of the regulations is not removed by the gear derogation: It is as logical to use the present regulations as a method of conservation as it is to slim by weighing an arm and sawing it off, then weighing a leg and sawing it off. That is exactly the basis of the regulations. It is illogical to approach the matter by means of such expedients.
I am in a happy position. It is now the official policy of every party in the House, with the exception of the Ulster Unionists and myself, to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil about the Common Market. Yet the regulations are just the sort of daft, bland, cover-all measures—irrelevant

to the circumstances of particular countries, fishing industries and stocks—that one would expect to emanate from such an organisation. They are blanket measures whose application to particular countries will be damaging. Total allowable catches—a bad method of conservation—are also blanket measures, which lead only to increased discards. An equally daft measure is the proposal for 120 mm meshes as a universal norm.
Such measures would not have had to be imposed from outside—by the Common Market—had Ministers taken a responsible position, pursuing research and advancing conservation by more reasonable methods over the years. Instead, they have allowed the industry to be restructured by market forces, liquidations and bankruptcies, and have not pursued proper conservation policies. As a result, we have a crisis. Measures have had to be imposed from outside because Ministers have not prepared the way by paying due attention to conservation by a proper decommissioning scheme—a much more effective way of reducing the effort bearing on the stocks. They could also have closed spawning grounds for certain parts of the year; that, too, is an effective method of conservation.
Ministers could also have pursued the valuable research that has been done into the effects of square mesh panels. I shall not go into that argument tonight, although others undoubtedly will.
The basic principles in favour of square mesh panels had been established at the Aberdeen laboratory by 1983. John Ashworth's paper, circulated to hon. Members, makes that absolutely clear. Yet for some reason the proposals have been held back by senior officials or the Department. Only now, with the industry itself financing and undertaking research into square mesh panels, are we in a position to demonstrate the value of the panels as an alternative and more effective method of conservation than blanket measures such as those contained in the present regulations. The Minister should be looking at a derogation for square mesh panels—whether 80 mm or 90 mm square mesh panels and wherever the panel is placed. Does it have to be placed differently for haddock or whiting than for cod? We should now be in a position to know all that. We should have undertaken the research and we should have in our possession the information to enable us to propose such alternative methods of conservation.
We should approach the issue with selective methods of conservation like that, not with this kind of blanket, crude measure which will damage the industry. We could have done that if Ministers had adopted a rational and reasonable attitude over the years and encouraged research into conservation. If they had done that, we would now have a good conservation record and regulations like the one that-we are debating tonight would not be imposed on us from outside.

Sir Hector Monro: There are relatively few fishing vessels on the Solway firth and they are important to their skippers. I want to refer briefly to the north-east and to Morayshire in particular, which I know well from annual visits and from many hours flying over the Moray firth as a maritime pilot.
Knowing Burghead, Hopeman and Lossiemouth, I can appreciate how seriously the fishermen view the problems that they face. We all know that we cannot amend the


instrument; we can only reject or accept it. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the interpretation of the regulations and be flexible. Having listened today to the important lobby on the subject, I think that my hon. Friend the Minister should consider the sea time between the port where the fish have been landed and the journey to the home port. A vessel may land fish at Peterhead while its home port may be Lossiemouth or Burghead. The journey back to the home port is dead sea time during which no fishing takes place, but that time must count towards the eight days.
After the fish have been landed, I cannot see why the vessel cannot be sailed back home without that time being counted against the eight days. After all, the fishermen must get home. They may also need to get home for repairs or to take on stores and equipment for the next voyage. To maintain that that journey time should be counted within the eight days is too rigid an interpretation of the regulations. When my hon. Friend replies, I hope that he can concede that point and be flexible.
I support the overall aim of conservation, but I am concerned about how we are going to interpret the regulations. If the Minister can make the concession for which I have asked, that would help some fishermen who want to take their boats home after they have landed their fish in another port.

Mr. James Wallace: Many people with a great interest in the fishing industry who have been listening to this debate will have been disappointed by the Minister's response to the prayer. He began my making several cheap debating points. He said that the prayer relates to amending regulations and that if the prayer was approved, the amendment would not be part of the scheme. He did not mention the fact that we are not debating the substantive statutory instrument which implements the days in port regulations because that lies entirely in the Government's hands. The Leader of the House and the Government could have allowed us to debate those regulations. The Minister should not be allowed to pull the wool over the eyes of people who might be listening to this debate by using cheap political points.
I remember appearing before Lord Wheatley in the second division of the Court of Session, and he would say to me, after I had made a point like that made today by the Minister, "Is that your best point, Mr. Wallace?" After the Minister's speech today we are entitled to ask "Is that your best point, Minister?" It just shows how bankrupt and threadbare is this Government's policy.
I do not have time to repeat the arguments that have already been made on many occasions. I shall simply refer to the point about flexibility made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Flexibility must be conceded in respect of the sailing time back to a home port after fish have been landed at the market. That particularly applies to several vessels from my constituency that might land at Mallaig or at the north—east ports and it may also apply to some vessels from Shetland which are not allowed to count as tie-up days and days when they are not fishing days when they are steaming back to their home ports.
In the debate of 14 February, the Minister of State, Scottish Office responded to the point by saying:

Transit time certainly adds to the time not available for fishing, but the whole point of the scheme is to reduce fishing activity. That is endemic in it and it must be faced."—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 1092.]
What can that mean other than a concession of the point that we were trying to make? It underlines the fact that there is considerable scope. With those comments, the Minister would not pass the primary 7 test.
It must be recognised that the derogation of 110 mm is better than nothing. It will benefit many boats in the English ports and it will benefit several ports in the Shetland part of my constituency. However, there are two points related to that. First, even for those who enjoy a derogation, eight days may be seen as a precedent. When I visited ports in south-east England yesterday, especially Hastings, there was a fear that, although they will not be affected by the measure, we are creating a precedent that will be applied to and will affect other parts of the industry. Secondly, fishermen fear that because the 110 mm measure is included in the regulations, it will become par for the course in other size regulations. The 110 mm size will not be acceptable to the industry which has, for a long time, put to the Ministry scientific evidence on a number of mesh sizes, including square mesh and diamond mesh combinations, which are far more acceptable to the industry and which make a positive contribution to conservation.
The Minister gave the game away. He said that the safety argument does not stand up because it is not a question of the number of days of fishing, but of the quotas determining incomes and how much fish will be caught. If that is the case, what in the world have we been debating? Why do we need the eight-day tie-up if it is the amount of fish available and the quotas rather than the number of days that can be fished that are relevant? The Minister ruined his whole argument with the argument that he tried to turn on us. He has turned his mind against decommissioning. It is part and parcel of this debate because if we had had a well-managed and properly targeted decommissioning scheme, there would never have been a need for tie-up regulations.
The Government have failed the industry by refusing even to countenance a decommissioning scheme. Lord Strathclyde refused even to respond to proposals that the industry itself might make a contribution to pump-priming a decommissioning scheme. The Government have a bankrupt policy for bankrupting the industry.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Everybody must accept the need for conservation. However, there will clearly be enormous argument about whatever methods are advanced. There is no doubt that it would have been wholly wrong if we had stuck to the original tie-up proposal. Few boats in the north-east, in my locality, were affected by the proposal, but it would have had a serious effect on those who were covered by it. There is no doubt that it was seen as a dangerous move and the Minister is to be congratulated on persuading Brussels to allow the option on mesh sizes.
There was considerable fear that the initial proposal would have spread eventually to the many smaller boats and there was great concern in the industry that the adverse effect would spread along the coast. Without question, it would not have been accepted by the fishing community. At one time, the fishing community talked


about breaking the law, but, quite rightly, it refused to do so. It decided that, whatever the circumstances, it would not break the law.
We have to face the fact that if we are to have effective regulations, they must carry the fishing community with them. That was not the case with the original proposals. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the way in which he fought, through Brussels, the option on net sizes.
I find myself in considerable agreement with the reference of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to the stupidity of trying to find universal solutions to the problems of different countries. Following that path all too often leads either to no solution or to a draconian solution which can harm the future of the industry. We are all concerned about the long-term future of the industry as well as about the short-term problems of today, which are in everyone's mind.
We must deal with the problems of discards and of the indiscriminate slaughter of juvenile stocks. All hon. Members participating in the debate are conversant with the problems between different parts of the industry and the problems of mesh sizes as they apply to different stocks.
Industrial fishing seems to be a subject that, time after time, evades effective action from Brussels. We must keep on emphasising that in our discussions with the Community. There has clearly been a dramatic failure of Community policy on fishing, and criticism of Brussels by the fishing industry is self-evidently justified.
In the short time available, I wish to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister the issue of square mesh panels, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby also mentioned. How does my hon. Friend the Minister see that proposal developing? We have all heard of the successful trials that have taken place. What will happen to ensure that the proposal is introduced? Many sectors of the industry believe that it could be an answer to their problems. What are my hon. Friend's views on derogation for whiting in the winter season? How does he respond to the suggestions made about that?
It is true that the industry is divided—north and south of the border and in different ports north and south of the border. Derogation adds to the divisions within the industry because something that helps one sector is seen as disadvantageous to another. In his wind-up speech, will my hon. Friend say what will happen to those boats that will not be affected by the current proposals? What will happen to the smaller boats which, in my part of the world, make up most of the fleet, but are not affected by these proposals? What does the Minister see as the future of the smaller boats which form such an important sector of the industry?

Mr. Robert Hughes: This is a serious debate. The reputations of Parliament and the Minister have not been enhanced by the Minister's tawdry opening remarks. That bodes ill for the future of an industry that faces a crisis and is seeking to put its view to the Government in a serious manner. The Minister clearly underestimates the enormous strength of feeling in the fishing industry, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. Its members are anxious to co-operate with the

Government and arrive at a scheme that provides for conservation and structure and will give a decent livelihood to the people who go to sea.
Fishing is still one of the most dangerous industries, if not the most dangerous, in the country. The fact that that danger is being compounded by apparently stupid inflexibility—turning danger into daily peril—is astonishing. The Minister gave an assurance that instructions had gone out stating that the eight-day rule should be dealt with flexibly. Apparently, those instructions have not got through to the people enforcing the rules. The fishermen are clearly telling us that the rules are still being applied totally inflexibly, and making it dangerous. There is a failure of communication, which the Minister must put right.
The whole point of today's debate and the eight-day tie-up rule is that there seems to be a blanket refusal by the Government to deal with the issues on a long-term basis. There is a saying in Scotland, "Everyone is out of step except our Jock." It seems that everyone is out of step except our David. But clearly the Minister is absolutely out of step. I have never known such a cross-party unanimity of purpose and feeling as there is on this issue.
The Minister gave the game away to some extent when he said that if we did not deal with the problem now there would be a grave danger that the eight-day rule might be increased in future. That is a serious matter, and whether the Minister likes it or not, and whether he admits it or not, a precedent has been set. The Commission and the Government are proceeding on a dangerous course if they deal with fishing purely in terms of tie-up time. The eight days will become 12, and it will be said that we have won a great concession when the period is brought back to 10 days; a 16-day period will be suggested and it will be said that we have won a great concession when the figure drops back to 14. We have an increasing problem. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the Minister gave the game away when he said that quotas would determine the matter. The shorter the time that is provided for vessels to be at sea, the greater the proportion of that time they have to spend at sea if they are to achieve their quotas. It is a circular argument.
The Government must address the problems of the industry. The industry has said quite clearly that it wants a decommissioning scheme, properly structured and properly worked out over a period. I am afraid that the Minister's remarks at the beginning of the debate make constructive debate much more difficult. There is no reason to create hostility, yet the Minister is doing that extremely well. Everyone believes that if we have a proper decommissioning scheme, some of the problems can he resolved. But not all the problems will be resolved. The industry needs some stability and some sanity. We cannot stagger on year after year, from crisis to crisis, never knowing where we shall be this time next year. It is just not good enough. We are concerned about the catching side of the industry—the one which, at present, is more severely affected. But the processing industry too will be affected. All sorts of people will be involved.
I want to adhere to the five-minute limit that we have been asked to observe, but there is a question that I must put to the Minister. It was originally proposed that the mesh size should be 120 mm. How was that size chosen? What scientific evidence was provided? I have not seen any, and I do not know anybody who has. Why was it suddenly decided that the size could be reduced to 110


mm? What was the scientific basis for that decision? I do not have time to go into detail about square mesh panels, and so on. Alternatives, coupled with restructuring of the industry on a proper basis, are being put forward—alternatives that would begin to tackle the problem on a long-term basis. We lurch from crisis to crisis; from danger to danger; from peril to peril.
It is not good enough that the Minister should dismiss the genuine fears of the fishermen. Some people say that the fishermen brought their difficulties upon themselves. That is not necessarily wholly true. No doubt the fishermen would accept that, in days gone by, they contributed to over-fishing. But they all want stability. They want to deal with the problem, and the Minister must not set his face against constructive dialogue with the industry. If he does so, the Government will pay a very heavy price. Whatever else we may want, we do not want to see that price paid in terms of fishermen's lives.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I speak more in sorrow than anything else. I was slightly disappointed by the remarks of the Minister at the beginning of his speech. I beg him to be under no illusion about the strength and depth of feeling among fishermen in Scotland about this matter. This is demonstrated by the number of fishermen who are attending this debate and by the support that they have had from councillors, fish processors and others.
My views on this scheme have already been made clear, and I do not intend, in this short debate, to elaborate on them. I have to say, however, that I believe that this tie-up scheme is crazy. It is nonsensical, and seems to have been devised in Europe by people with no practical experience of the fishing industry or of what fishermen have to face every day in the waters around the country. The fishermen's discretion as to when they should go to sea, and whether they should stay at sea, is being interfered with. This could be downright dangerous. I can only hope that that will not turn out to be the case.
Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made clear, the regulations are riddled with anomalies and injustices. What exactly constitutes a day at sea? What we have here shows a lack of understanding of the practicalities of the industry—quite apart from the wider issues of the intrusion on social and family life.
We now have the alternative of the 110 mm net. As I said in the last debate on this subject. I welcome the introduction of this alternative. It is a practical proposition. It shows that action should be possible on other sizes. What I hope to see in future is an extension of the use of mesh sizes to achieve conservation as an alternative to the nonsensical tie-up scheme.
As other hon. Members have made clear, the 110 mm mesh is not an alternative for Scotland. We have a mixed haddock and whiting fishery, unlike the cod fishery in the south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said, it is of benefit to his fishermen, but it is not of benefit to Scottish fishermen. I assume that it is hoped that the 110 mm mesh as an alternative will achieve the one third reduction in fishing effort which was referred to in the last debate.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), what is the genesis of the 110 mm mesh? Why was that mesh size chosen? On what scientific advice was it chosen? What scientific research took place to justify that measurement as opposed to another measurement which might have been more relevant for the Scottish fishery? The question needs to be answered because it is directly relevant to the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer it.
This is not just a negative debate. The fishing industry has alternatives. It is not just saying no to the tie-up scheme. It accepts that there have to be changes in the net, and it accepts the square mesh alternative. It accepts the need to reduce fishing effort.
In that context, the decommissioning scheme is relevant. I must impress on the House and on my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that that measure is available to us and is supported by the industry. It will not be without cost. The adjustment will be hard on certain sections of the industry, particularly as I believe that it has to be combined with a tight licensing scheme to control the fishing effort.
The measure is available to us. It is an integral part of the common fisheries policy. It was supported by British Ministers in the renegotiations in the early 1980s. I was there. I negotiated it as part of that policy, with the total support of the Government and of fellow Ministers.
For all those reasons, I am deeply saddened that I am asked tonight to approve a measure that is not soundly based, that is impractical and that could be dangerous, particularly when other alternatives, supported by the fishing industry, are within the gift of the Government. I certainly cannot approve the statutory instrument, and I shall not support it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I note that the Minister responsible for fisheries is opening and closing the debate. Perhaps after the lamentable performance of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, Scottish Office in the previous two fishing debates we should not be surprised that this time they have been left in the pavilion. None the less, given that the regulations affect more Scottish fishing boats than those of the rest of the European Community put together, we might at least have had a Scottish Office Minister at the Dispatch Box attempting to defend this miserable statutory instrument.
It is about three weeks since the previous fishing debate and we have had three weeks' experience of how the eight-day tie-up is affecting the economic and social fabric of the fishing communities. It is not just affecting livelihoods but is in danger of affecting lives.
The measure is being enforced not so much as a tie-up but punitively as a curfew. In the Lobby today we heard three specific examples of the hardline enforcement of the rule. We heard of how a boat going for repairs from Whitehills to Macduff, a distance of two to three miles, was considered to be in breach of the tie-up regulations.
We heard that boats going out from Macduff for engine trials, within sight of the harbour, are considered to be in breach of the regulations. And, thirdly, we heard that boats returning to home ports, for example, from Peterhead to Fraserburgh.. are considered to be in breach of the regulations, greatly to the detriment of the businesses and traders in Fraserburgh. That is economic dislocation of the fishing communities to no point or purpose. Opposition Members will be surprised if the Minister can tell us any way in which any of those examples are contributing to the conservation of fish. Why cannot the activities that I have described be considered as a "reasonable excuse" as defined under the statutory instrument?
The great concern of all representatives of fishing communities is safety. Ministers'—indeed, the Government's—comments on this matter are, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, dishonest. On 13 February the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote in the Aberdeen Evening Express:
Fishermen should never be forced out in bad weather and I don't believe it will be necessary—".
In the previous fishing debate, the Minister of State said something similar, and Lord Strathclyde wrote to me on 14 February stating:
safety always remains the responsibility of each individual skipper.
Those remarks display either total ignorance of the position or total cynicism on the Government's part. Of course, fishermen will be forced to sea in adverse weather conditions——

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): indicated dissent.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister denies it.

Mr. Salmond: Last year, 38 of the first 90 available days were forecast as either gale force 8 or storm force 10. That is a natural constraint on fishermen's ability to put to sea. If one adds to that an artificial limitation and further constraints on the ability of fishermen to judge the best time to put to sea, the economic pressure will force fishermen out of port in adverse weather conditions. The

Government say that that is somehow the skippers' "free choice", but that is the same as saying, "You have a free choice of registering for the tie-up scheme if you are prepared to face a penalty of £50,000 for breaching the regulations." The stark truth is that fishermen have been dragooned into registering for the scheme and are being pushed out to sea in adverse weather conditions.
The Minister said that there will be "flexibility" for people caught at sea in storm conditions. Exactly the same promise was made to me in the previous fishing debate by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, yet there has been instance after instance in the past three weeks of fishing boats in my constituency running for port in adverse weather conditions because they were frightened of the penalties under the tie-up regulations. When will that flexibility be detailed to the fisheries officers round the coasts so that they know that promises which are being made at the Dispatch Box will be put into force in our fishing communities? I should be happy to give way to the Minister of State if he would answer that specific question.
I do not wish to transgress on the time that is available to me and shall make only two final points. Opposition Members do not want any more excuses about how all this is to do with European Community regulations. We believe that if the Government took a reasonable line on decommissioning, all sorts of things would be possible within the European Community, including the scrapping of the eight-day tie-up and the introduction of 80 mm square mesh panels.
Above all, the message from this debate is that, although only a dozen Conservative Members have been present, no doubt when it comes to the vote, their colleagues will stagger out of the bars and restaurants round Westminster to vote through this measure. I do not believe that any Government have the moral right to impose on fishing communities a measure that will further endanger the lives of fishermen, and I certainly do not believe that any Government have the moral authority to whistle up their majority from the liquid dungeons of the House of Commons.

Mr. Frank Doran: The Minister has made great play of the scientific evidence and all his predecessors have done exactly the same. Scientific evidence clearly shows that we need conservation measures and hon. Members have talked about some of the measures that are available. The marine laboratory in Aberdeen in my constituency did research work into the square mesh and diamond mesh net panels. It is clear from all the discussions that I have had with the scientists and fishermen on the particular tests that there are appropriate conservation measures, but one must also bear in mind that fishing is an economic activity and try to obtain the optimum mesh size with the appropriate degree of conservation.
All the scientists have come to the conclusion that for the fishermen in the north—east of Scotland the optimum size of net is 90 mm diamond with an 80 mm square mesh panel. That scientific evidence has been accepted by the fishermen and it would lead to improved conservation. I gave the figures when we last debated the matter in the House. That is acceptable to the fishermen because it would offer them a reasonable standard of living and the possibility of a reasonable catch.
The regulations effectively remove any option. The fishermen know that the regulations do not give them a viable economic option. The regulations will not be accepted by the fishermen in the north-east of Scotland because they have no prospect of a reasonable catch. They will be given no support, economic or otherwise, in the face of these draconian measures, so it is understandable that they see no alternative but to reject the regulations and face all the problems that have been so admirably discussed and presented today.
The processors also have to rely on a steady supply of fish. They are against the regulations because they may mean the interruption of their supplies which in turn will affect their businesses. That too seems to have been ignored by the Minister.
Hon. Members have already referred to the way in which the Minister has approached the debate. The Minister came to the previous fishing debate just over three weeks ago in what seemed to be a fairly excited state of mind because he had managed to wring a concession out of Europe and he expected the full gratitude of the House. He did not get that gratitude because hon. Members on both sides of the House have enough experience to be aware that he was not making any offer whatever.
I wish that the Minister would listen to the points being made and not try to score cheap party political points as he attempted to do earlier. The most serious points that have been made tonight have come from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) used to occupy the position which the Minister now holds and has a vast experience in this area, representing a fishing area. I wish that the Minister would take some time to listen to him. What he said tonight was constructive and much more appropriate than the cheap political point-scoring in which the Minister indulged. It takes quite a lot for the Minister to turn the House against him in that way.
The Minister huffs and puffs, but at the end of the day there is a unanimity of purpose in the House. All hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies want the industry to thrive. We all accept that conservation measures are necessary to protect the fishing stocks. We all appreciate the problems that the fishing community is experiencing. The Minister is adopting an antagonistic approach to the debate. It would not take much for us all to speak with one voice and to march forward and to present to Europe a case which has the full support of the House. Instead the House is split. Even Conservative Members are split, as we have heard tonight.
I wish that the Minister would take a much more constructive approach and attempt to take a sounding. There is an arrogance about his approach which I find extremely disturbing in the context of this debate. We do not want to be divided on this. We want to see our industry prosper. The only way to do that is to find adequate conservation measures which are acceptable to the industry. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will consider what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House and attempt to deal seriously with the points, rather than to dismiss them as though he took no interest in them.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Of necessity, I shall be extremely brief. I have found it difficult during this debate to contemplate the expressions of Front-Bench Members and members of the Treasury Bench in particular. They showed an attitude somewhere between smug complacency and total disregard for the fishing industry.
The Minister opened the debate by referring to comments which I made on 14 February. As a woman Member of Parliament who represents, and is proud to represent, a fishing constituency, I can tell the Minister that his comments will be read with disgust by not only the fishermen but their wives, sons and daughters.
Just before Christmas I and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) experienced the tragedy of fishing disasters. We know the exact implications of fishing disasters for our communities. The Minister takes lightly the probability that dangers will be increased by the implementation of the eight-day rule.
I also emphasise to the Minister the implications of the tie-up for the whole society of many of our fishing communities around the coast of Scotland. Not only the catching industry but the processing industry and all the ancillary industries will be affected. The rule will affect the butcher, the baker and the candlestick-maker in all our communities. If the fishing industries disappear in areas like mine, where 25 per cent. of jobs are totally dependent on fishing, many other facilities in the community will disappear.
Another point that I should like to emphasise to the Minister was raised by a member of Highland regional council. The eight-day tie-up will force many people to break what they see as the Sabbatarian rule. I shall not go into people's religious beliefs, but I respect their beliefs. For many people, Sunday is also a family day. It is a day when they try hard to be with their family and to be involved in the community. Many fishermen are involved in various voluntary organisations such as the venture scouts or the boys' brigade.
I see the Minister yet again sitting smirking on the Front Bench and paying not a blind bit of attention to what we are saying about our communities in the north—east of Scotland. If he would pay attention to what we are saying about our communities, I would be grateful. I, for one, am fed up with Ministers saying, "Yes, we care about the rural, far-flung and peripheral communities," yet at the end of the day doing nothing to argue our case.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the hon. Lady agree with me that the eight-day tie-up is an amazing policy to come from a party which purports to be the party of the family? Does she conclude, as I do, that fishermen's families apparently do not count?

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The Ministry has a great deal to answer for in terms of the distress caused to the wives and children of my constituents who are skippers and crewmen.
It is clear that again the Government are ignoring our arguments. There is a great deal of chat and smiling on the Front Bench. Ministers argue that somehow they will achieve flexibility on the eight-day tie-up, but as yet we have received no details. The fishermen who have come down from the north—east of Scotland, the Northern Isles, the Western Isles and all over Scotland to listen to the debate are still awaiting details of how the Government


intend to implement the so-called flexibility. I suspect that there is no flexibility. There is no flexibility in their altitude to the eight-day tie-up. There is no flexibility in their attitude to our communities and the problems which the Government are creating for them. The House of Commons is being brought into disrepute by the Government's failure to address the needs of our fishing communities.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that the Minister will answer two questions when he replies. I had not intended to speak in the debate until I came across David Gardner's article in yesterday's Financial Times concerning Mr. Marin's threat to withdraw the legal basis of the Community's fisheries policy. I hope that the Minister will respond to that threat.
The Fisheries Commissioner said that the Commission might apply the principle of subsidiarity
which holds that the Community should not interfere in policy best developed at national level.
David Gardner went on to say:
The Commission would also be making national fisheries ministers and governments responsible for whatever future the industry has.
That is a serious question and I hope that the Minister will deal with it. I believe that Mr. Marin has issued a real threat. I hope to meet him on Tuesday next week.
When I meet the Fisheries Commissioner next week, I intend to tell him that, in my view, article 13 of Council regulation EEC No. 3926/90 may be legally invalid. Furthermore, there may be some loose drafting in the regulations.
The policy objective is to reduce the fishing of certain commercially valuable species. The Community is allowed a degree of commercial discrimination. It is able to introduce regulations which may hit some elements of the Community more than others. The question of dubious validity arises. The regulations may affect common law principles that are recognised by the European Court of Justice. I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of proportionality and the administration of equal justice to all concerned. The measure may lead to unfair discrimination.
This turbulent Fisheries Commissioner claims that the European Community's fleet suffers from 40 per cent. overcapacity. He may be close to the truth, but a rigorous examination and overhaul of the total allowable catch and quota system is needed, as well as a new set of multi-annual guidance programmes. What is the Minister's view concerning the introduction of a new set of MAGPs for the different fishing fleets?
If some communities will be hit hard by the measures, should not we argue that the European Community should conduct a study to identify those regions that are likely to be worst hit by a reduction in fishing effort so that appropriate measures can be introduced in the forth-coming review of the European Community's structural funds?
The stay in port represents major hazards for fishermen. It places them under a terrible burden to fish in bad weather. Risky fishing is normally associated with fleets owned by trawler companies. Skippers are forced to fish in bad weather. If they did not do so, they could be replaced by many others who were members of a pool of skippers. We do not want that kind of dangerous fishing

being introduced into this sector of the industry. This measure is a disgrace. I believe it to be invalid and it should be opposed.

Mr. Brian Wilson: There has been considerable unity in the Chamber tonight, not least among hon. Members who have spoken about the appalling nature of the Parliamentary Secretary's opening remarks. If there was any doubt about whether Opposition Members should have prayed against the instrument and forcing a debate on the Floor of the House, our action was clearly justified by the response of the occupants of the Government Front Bench, not only in the substance of what they have said but in the manner in which they have conducted themselves.
Considering that, of the 450 vessels affected by the statutory instrument, 384 are registered in Scottish ports, we are disappointed, to say the least, that in the remaining minutes of the debate we shall not hear even from the Scottish Office Minister who has nominal responsibility for the fishing industry.
Other matters aside, Scottish fishermen and everyone concerned with the Scottish fishing industry are fed up with that nominal Minister for the industry not being answerable to the House but being yet another stooge hired from an agency apparently run by Debrett's—[Interruption.] Those people are put up to answer for the Scottish fishing industry but are not answerable to the House; they are known to nobody in the Scottish fishing industry and are accountable to no democratic electorate.
When dealing with matters such as this, it is unacceptable not to have a Scottish Office Minister at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps in the previous debate the Minister of State gave away so many hostages to fortune that we should understand why he is not addressing us tonight.
Tonight we got from the Parliamentary Secretary an arrogant performance. He thought it was a gross inconvenience, beyond anything that was reasonable, that he should be called back to the Dispatch Box to speak on the measure. He was utterly dismissive—[Interruption.] Does the Government Assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), wish to intervene? He is not the only Conservative who is a little overtired and emotional at this time of night. That has been evident during the debate.
In his remarks, the Minister made the extraordinary statement that the whole matter was governed by quota. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked, what is the point of the eight-day tie-up rule if the quota is designed to impose precisely the control the Government are seeking?
As the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and several of my hon. Friends asked, from where did the magical 110 mm figure come? In the previous debate the Minister appeared triumphantly to give the impression that the figure had been put forward by Her Majesty's Government in Europe. Is that a fact? Where did the 110 mm figure originate and why is it so inflexible in dealing with the different and comprehensible needs of the Scottish fishing industry and the mixed fishery that it pursues?
Much has been said about the need for flexibility. It is unfortunate that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), is not replying to the debate


because, somewhat uncharacteristically, he introduced the word "flexibility" into it. We can call him the flexible hon. Member for Stirling. In the debate on 14 February—St. Valentine's day, as the Under-Secretary touchingly, though patronisingly, pointed out—the hon. Member for Stirling said:
Under the scheme … there is a requirement to give 12 hours' notice of the port where the tie-up will take place. That does not have to be the port of normal location. If it were not sensible, because of weather conditions, to make for port, we should expect the fisheries inspector to take a flexible view. No one is suggesting anything to the contrary.—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, col. 1091.]
Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether anyone is now suggesting anything to the contrary? Will he assure us that the flexibility mentioned in the previous debate will obtain for a vessel caught in a storm while in transit? Will it be prudent for such a vessel to make a run for port, as happens already? It is common in the Scottish fishing industry, although I would not expect the Minister to know it, for vessels to be based on the west coast while their crews have their homes on the east coast. Will the time taken to sail from west to east be included in the eight-day tie-up, or will that time be counted as additional? Will the time taken for fishermen to sail from one port to another to have their vessels maintained or repaired be included in the eight-day period?
Those are practical questions which the Minister, with some assistance, should be able to answer. There is no need for arrogance or for a dismissive attitude. There is an audience inside and outside the House, and it wants answers to those questions. A decommissioning scheme is relevant to the debate. Because of the folk memory of the failure of the Humber decommissioning scheme in the early 1980s, which appears to hang like a limpet to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, there is a repeated incantation that the Government will not have a decommissioning scheme.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office spelt out the rationale for that. He said:
A decommissioning scheme would not help to conserve stocks. It would be most attractive to the least efficient vessels which exert a little pressure on the stocks."—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 1092.]
That is not correct. The Minister of State, Scottish Office cannot speak but he can sneer, and spends all his time doing it. If he has anything to say that does not come from the corner of his mouth he should come to the Dispatch Box and say it. If the Government are telling us that they are incapable of conceiving or administering a scheme that does not overcome the difficulties mentioned in the excerpt that I read from the Minister's speech, it is an admission of defeat, like that of every other European Government except the Government of the Irish Republic.
We should consider not only the 384 vessels that will be directly affected by the tie-up, but the knock-on effect on the east coast fishing industry and that of the Orkney and Shetlands. In parts of Scotland that are not subject to the tie-up regulations, notably the prawn fisheries which are not subject to quota, the pressure from the measure is already being felt and the bottom has been knocked out of the livelihoods of fishermen.
Conservative Members laugh and sneer and obviously think that such a debate has no political cost. Last week Scottish Tories visited the north—east of Scotland and

spoke about winning seats there at the next election. People from the north—east will have watched their performance in this debate. Conservative Members might as well have visited China because the debate has shown their contempt for and lack of interest in the issues that have been presented.

Mr. Curry: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Curry: It is as well at this point to appreciate where we are. We have a major conservation problem on fisheries and it will not go away. There is a major problem about haddock and cod—the two stocks that are of predominant interest to British fishermen. Haddock in particular is the backbone of the Scottish fishing industry. Therefore, to deal responsibly with fisheries, we must take measures to conserve the stocks of haddock. That is the point from which we start and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) starts from the same point, because I know that he appreciates the dilemmas that we face in trying to formulate policy in the industry.

Mr. Salmond: rose——

Mr. Curry: No, I shall not give way. I shall try to answer the questions that have been asked as I have only a few minutes.
Many hon. Members mentioned technical conservation and the square mesh. We all hope that we can reach the point at which we can tackle conservation through selectivity of gear. That is where we want to be. It is true that positive work has been done. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not correct that that work has been suppressed, or that we have not taken it seriously. Trials are taking place at the moment, and we have carried out extensive trials.
We have managed to persuade Brussels to accept the principle of square mesh. However, as I have said frankly in the past to fishermen, if they are merely offering a 90 mm diamond mesh with an 80 mm square mesh panel, we will be unable to get that accepted in Brussels. We tried. I argued throughout a Fisheries Council for that, but it is not sufficient to be accepted in Brussels, and that is the fact of the matter. It does help. It is a conservation measure which takes us forward, but it does not take us far enough. That is the political reality. However, we shall continue to press ahead with that cause.
There will be a new Fisheries Council meeting in mid-April at which we shall yet again seek Community-wide measures, based on technical conservation, because that is the key to fisheries. No doubt at that Council I shall be able to explore the matters about which the vice-president was talking. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned Mr. Mann's speculations. In one breath, Mr. Marin appears to be saying that we should not have national quotas, but a single Community sea, with a sort of free-for-all, which is entirely unacceptable to us. I am delighted to be able to say that it is unacceptable to a sufficient number of other countries for us to be able to defend ourselves from that proposal.
I have also heard Mr. Marin say that we should accept a not very well defined principle of subsidiarity. Does that mean that we pass fisheries policy back to member states? We have to know what he is talking about.
Clearly, our aim, if we are to have a Communitywide policy, is to try to preserve the status quo, in so far as it gives the United Kingdom a major proportion of its fisheries and allows us to manage our fisheries policy, because we believe that we will do it better than anyone else.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about tie-ups?

Mr. Curry: I am answering questions asked during the debate. Hon. Members queried whether there would be flexibility when boats moved from one port to another. May I be quite specific—boats have done so in the past. They have moved from one port to another to have an engine repaired or for some other purpose. The regulations state that they must remain in port, not merely refrain from fishing. The purpose is to reduce effort. In other words, it is different from ordinary practice. Therefore, we shall enforce the rule.
In the first part of his remarks the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked whether we would consider genuine safety problems and bad weather. The answer is yes, and we can prove it, because in the past few days the fisheries inspectorate has accepted bad weather as a reason for fishermen arriving late at a port where they have nominated to tie up. That is perfectly clear, and we are on record as saying that. We have implemented that and it is perfectly clear to fishermen.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Curry: No, because I have only three minutes left.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked why, if quotas limit the amount that fishermen can catch, we need a tie-up. The reason is that if there is a quota alone, more fish are caught than are landed, and there is a high rate of discard. Therefore, we need to bring effort more into line with the quota to reduce discards.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will agree that discards are a major problem. We have to tackle that problem because the trials, to which several hon. Members referred, demonstrate that in some cases the rate of discard is higher than the number of marketable fish caught. That is why square mesh is so important, because it eliminates discards of roundfish. Square mesh suits certain species, but not necessarily others, and the sort of rigging used is also important.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) talked about 120 mm square mesh, which was a Commission proposal. Our experiments showed that it would catch practically nothing, which is why we rejected the proposal, and even the Commission is no longer pressing for it. I have a strong suspicion that when we go back to the Council the Commission will be pressing for 110 mm.
The origin of the 110 mm option lies in the fact that that mesh size was calculated to deliver a reduction in effort equivalent to the 30 per cent. effort reduction. Also, we had to get the Commission to accept the proposals. We cannot escape our obligation to respond to propositions put to us by the Commission. There is no alternative; we must deal with the circumstances presented to us

That means, however, that we must take conservation seriously. There is a serious problem which we must tackle. I resent any suggestion that we have no dialogue with the industry. There is no hon. Member in the House—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)):-

The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 75.

Division No. 87]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Leadbitter, Ted


Alton, David
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McAllion, John


Ashton, Joe
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McLeish, Henry


Beggs, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McMaster, Gordon


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cryer, Bob
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dixon, Don
Morley, Elliot


Doran, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Douglas, Dick
Prescott, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Salmond, Alex


Fearn, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fyfe, Maria
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Hood, Jimmy
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Ingram, Adam
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Calum Macdonald.


Kennedy, Charles



Kirkwood, Archy





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knowles, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Lawrence, Ivan


Boswell, Tim
Lord, Michael


Bright, Graham
Maclean, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Miller, Sir Hal


Chope, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Curry, David
Norris, Steve


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Paice, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Day, Stephen
Rowe, Andrew


Dover, Den
Sackville, Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forman, Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Freeman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Goodlad, Alastair
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stevens, Lewis


Gregory, Conal
Summerson, Hugo


Hague, William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hanley, Jeremy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Harris, David
Thorne, Neil


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Trotter, Neville


Irvine, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jack, Michael
Waller, Gary


Janman, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Watts, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wheeler, Sir John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann






Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is aware that the previous debate related to the amending regulations to the original Sea Fishing (Days in Port) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 139). Having regard to the fact that some Opposition Members and other hon. Members were extremely dissatisfied, and continue to be less than satisfied, about the ministerial response, will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is within the Government's power to allow time for debate on the original statutory instrument? It would be in the interests of the fishing industry if we had an opportunity to debate the original regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I confirm nothing. Doubtless what has been said will have been heard by the usual channels.

CROFTER FORESTRY (SCOTLAND) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Crime Prevention, Norwich

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome this opportunity to discuss crime prevention in Norwich, and I am grateful to the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), for being present at this late hour to reply to the Adjournment debate.
I was in touch recently with the crime prevention panel in Norwich and with the chief constable of Norfolk to ensure that my remarks are completely up to date.
The fight against crime in any part of the country is an on-going struggle. It involves the public just as much as it involves the Government, Parliament, the police and the courts. We all agree on the need to deter potential criminals, on the duty of catching those responsible for crime and on the need for appropriate punishment. There is a continuing debate in Norwich about how to achieve those objectives.
The 1989–90 crime statistics for the county of Norfolk reveal a worrying upward trend. There are particularly marked increases in the figures for burglaries from dwellings which are up 29·5 per cent. Thefts from motor vehicles are up 45 per cent. and criminal damage is up 41 per cent. By contrast, crimes of violence are stabilising and were up only 3 per cent. over that period. Crime statistics in Norfolk show a deterioration in the record. In 1980, the figure was only 35·3 recorded crimes per 1,000 population, but in 1990 it was 71·7. The average national annual increase in the crime rate in the 1980s was 5·2 per cent., but in Norfolk it was higher than that average at 8 per cent.
Norfolk is steadily falling down in the league table of crime. I am informed that Norfolk is the second lowest funded of all the 31 non-metropolitan forces in terms of gross revenue expenditure and lowest of all in terms of capital expenditure per 1,000 population. My right hon. Friend may wish to comment on those facts later.
There is great pressure on uniformed police officers and on the CID in Norfolk. My attention was drawn yesterday to an article in the Eastern Daily Press by Canon David Sharpe of St. Peter Mancroft church in the centre of Norwich. He referred to the increasing problem of vandalism. Almost two dozen insurance claims have been made by his church in the past two years, and in the past fortnight his stained glass windows have been damaged on three occasions at a cost of more than £1,000. It is no wonder that he is worried.
I am aware that the Government have responded positively to calls from Norfolk for extra resources to fight crime. An additional 155 police posts have been authorised since 1979 and 67 police officers have been released through civilianisation since then. An extra 12 police posts were authorised last December, with effect from 1 October 1991. However, the rise in police manpower is significantly less than that sought by the police authority in Norfolk. Only 102 of 188 posts sought since 1988 have been granted and I gather that the decision on 25 additional officers requested for 1992–93 may still be some way off.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether his Department realises that the special needs for policing of the rural areas are greater than is recognised when compared with the metropolitan areas. From my studies, it seems that the


metropolitan areas are treated more generously in terms of the number of police officers. That case is put to me regularly and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could respond to that point.
There has been a concerted effort to win the support of the Norwich public through the establishment of the Norwich Crime Stoppers in 1987. Crime Stoppers began in 1983 in Great Yarmouth and since then it has been a great success. It offers direct telephone access to Norwich CID for members of the public with information on serious crimes. Callers are able to remain anonymous and they are given a code number. If a criminal is convicted by the courts on their information, they become eligible for a reward. The success of the Crime Stoppers scheme is clear from the figures. In 1987–89, 145 serious crimes were publicised in local newspapers. Some 191 calls from informants were received by Norwich CID and 35 arrests were made. Attacks on six elderly ladies, a bank robbery, cases of robberies from business premises and arson and burglary at a Norwich school, advertised through Crime Stoppers, have all recently ended in arrests.
The value of the scheme is clear but, unfortunately, the flow of donations from local businesses is drying up. I am not sure whether more direct Home Office support is available to Crime Stoppers campaigns. Again, I am thinking of the metropolitan areas and of London, where such support is forthcoming. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this excellent scheme needs support not only from the local community, but perhaps from the Government? There is no doubt of the success of the Crime Stoppers campaign in crime prevention and detection in Norwich.
Better intelligence on crime and detection are only part of the struggle. There is considerable concern in Norwich about the lack of secure facilities for young offenders, about the policies of the courts on bailing accused persons and the apparently lax punishment of those convicted.
My right hon. Friend may know of criticisms of the social services department of Norfolk county council expressed by the senior Crown prosecutor, Mr. Nicholas Methold, at Yarmouth magistrates court last August about the department's failure to provide secure accommodation for two juveniles remanded to the council's care. The county's social services department had to telephone other authorities across the country to find places for the boys, but that problem is likely to end when the secure accommodation unit at Kerrison school in Eye, Suffolk, opens next October. But that unit has only 10 beds to serve the whole of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, so I hope to hear soon from the authorities that an expansion to a total of 30 beds will follow rapidly.
I realise that the absence of suitable secure accommodation is a partial explanation for the bailing practices of the courts. I appreciate that, under the provisions of the Bail Act 1976, a decision on the release of accused persons is a matter for the courts alone. Presumption in favour of bail, unless there are reasons to fear absconding, interference with witnesses or further crimes, is right. However, my doubts are raised by the current position in Norfolk where four people accused of murder, two of attempted murder and one of armed robbery of a bank are currently on bail. By any standards, those are serious and violent crimes, and there need to be good reasons to justify bail in those cases.
There is also concern about some of the courts'

sentencing policies. It is sensible for those guilty of minor crimes against property and, in some cases, against persons to be kept out of gaol. I welcome the Government's recent initiatives ensuring that mentally ill people are not unnecessarily kept in prison. I think that it is true—my right hon. Friend can correct me if I am wrong—that one fifth of sentenced prisoners are, at present, mentally ill. I am sure that it it right to try to reduce the numbers of some categories of prisoners. But in more serious cases, criminals should go to prison, where they can be contained and the public protected.
Without the intervention of the Court of Appeal in January, brothers who lured pizza delivery boys into traps for the purpose of robbing them would have escaped with a suspended prison sentence of 21 months and community service of 180 hours but now, as a result of the appeal, they are doing three years in gaol and 18 months in a young offenders institution.
Serious questions are being asked about these matters, and serious questions have to be asked about the supervision that probation officers can give to offenders under community service orders. Doubts about the value of community service were expressed by a former senior probation officer, Peter Coad, in the February edition of the police magazine. Those doubts are shared by some police officers in Norwich and by the crime prevention panel chairman, Mr. Norman Potter.
It is all too easy for persistent minor offenders to regard community service as an easy alternative to prison and to fund payment of fines through further criminal activities. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will in the near future be willing to meet representatives of the organisations interested in crime prevention and detection in Norwich to discuss the issues further.
For the reasons I have explained, there is a need in Norwich to enlarge support for the Crime Stoppers scheme, increase the numbers of police in Norwich and the more vulnerable rural districts, ensure that courts are more careful in their operation of bailing procedures and send those convicted of serious crimes to prison to protect the public. I support the general Home Office policy of reducing the overall number of prisoners. But I have made clear where the problems are arising, and I have outlined the points raised by my constituents and others in Norwich.
I have drawn my right hon. Friend's attention to some of the issues of concern among responsible people in Norwich. I hope that he will respond positively, bearing in mind the commitment of all those involved in the local community and the police force.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on taking this opportunity to raise the issue of crime prevention, particularly in Norwich. It is good to see the debate so well supported in the House tonight. I am particularly pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the chairman of Crime Concern Trust, is present to show, not only his interest as a Member of Parliament, but the interest of that important voluntary organisation in trying to promote crime prevention.
My hon. Friend's speech was very eloquent, but very sad. I have visited Norwich on a number of occasions, and


I have to say that it is a very beautiful city. To hear of St. Peter Mancroft church—that great medieval edifice in the centre of the city—being vandalised, and some pieces of historic glass attacked, fills me with sadness. But I am saddened not just by the damage to the historic fabric of that church but also by the damage that must have been done by the young criminals—I guess that they were young —who indulged in the vandalism. We have to do more to encourage such people to grow straight rather than crooked, and they must be punished when they are caught —and I am sure that the Norfolk police are trying to catch them.
Of course I shall meet my hon. Friend and any representatives from Norfolk that he wants to bring to talk about crime prevention. My door in the Home Office is always open. I shall do my best to meet people's concerns. For the purposes of the reply to my hon. Friend, may I say that much of the Home Office has been turned over this week to looking at what goes on in Norwich. In crime prevention, many good things are happening in the city.
Norfolk is a predominantly rural county. It is not comparable with the large conurbations, and it certainly does not have the same priorities and problems as the inner city areas. I realise that in rural areas distance is a problem. Some villages suffer from isolation. On the other hand, many towns, such as Great Yarmouth, with a lively night life experience trouble. I am certainly not saying that the county is an ocean of peace and quiet. However, Norwich has a great deal going for it in the development of safer communities. That is because in recent years people in Norwich have not turned a blind eye to what they can do to work with the police towards the prevention of crime. I pay tribute to them for that. The city is to be congratulated on what it has done in this respect—far more than many other provincial towns and cities. That co-operation is critically important.
I should like to describe some of the ways in which the police are working on crime prevention in Norwich and the rest of the county of Norfolk. First, let me give some details of the size of the force. I can confirm that the authorised establishment of officers in the Norfolk constabulary is 1,408—an increase of 143 on the 1979 figure. An additional 12 police officer posts have been approved, with effect from 1 October 1991, making a total of 1,420. But raw figures do not tell the whole story. Training and specialism are very important. More than 200 uniformed and CID officers in the county are trained in crime prevention techniques. More than 270 officers throughout the county, including Norwich, are designated as schools liaison officers to carry out programmes in primary schools. It is very good to have that intensity of police presence in schools. Let us face it: in my hon. Friend's constituency, like mine, teachers, doctors, health workers and vicars together could probably identify most of the potential criminals when those people are between the ages of four and seven. In this regard, the Norfolk police are on to a very good thing.
The police plan and organise a number of activity schemes in Norwich during the school summer holidays, under the banner of SPLASH—schools and police liaison activities for summer holidays. Last year, 700 youngsters in the 11 to 15 age group took up places on this scheme —a take-up rate of 96 per cent. What a popular and

successful scheme it has been. It has taken children, some of whom may be at risk of offending, off street corners, out of pubs, and out of areas where they might get into trouble, and has put them to useful activities. That is very constructive policing, and we want to see more of it in the country. Staffordshire has it, Humberside has it, Avon has it and Norfolk has it. I should like to see every county force in the country model its programme on the successful summer diversionary schemes. That is the kind of preventive activity that stops children getting into offending habits at an early age. Plans are being made to rerun the scheme this summer on an even bigger scale. I hope that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to encourage local people in that endeavour.
The police have also established a new schools liaison scheme in Norwich and elsewhere for primary schools. Those schemes and activities help to reduce crime in the target age groups. They also play a vital part in promoting understanding and better relations between the police and young people. I wish the police in Norwich every future success with them.
There is another advantage of the summer schemes: neither my hon. Friend nor I want the pressure to be taken off parents to face up to their own responsibilities. The Criminal Justice Bill, now in another place, puts emphasis on parental responsibility.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that we need to promote the safest possible community in Norwich. My hon. Friend, as an active and persuasive constituency Member, has taken a leading part in that respect in recent years. Perhaps it is partly due to his endeavours that we have seen an explosive growth recently in neighbourhood watch in Norwich. From inquiries I have made in the Home Office this week, I find that in the Norwich police division there are now nearly 400 homewatch schemes. Local schemes are increasing at the rate of two per week. That is remarkable. Of course, neighbourhood watch and homewatch are being promoted very much by Crime Concern, which acts as a liaison and link organisation for neighbourhood watch across the country.
I am also very pleased that the probation service is taking a tough attitude with young offenders. It is getting some of them on to the streets to put up neighbourhood watch signs. That is visible evidence of community service. My hon. Friend wondered whether community service was a tough enough penalty. It can be tough going out to do manual labour. It demonstrates to the community that young offenders are putting something back by putting up these signs.
Much crime prevention work involving other agencies is being done in Norwich. I pay tribute to the local crime prevention panel, a great organisation. I think that it is one of the most active in the south of England. I will be happy to see its representatives when my hon. Friend leads a delegation to see me.
The crime prevention panel has set up a pub watch and night club liaison scheme to try to deal with the problems of getting young people who have had a good evening away from the streets outside night clubs. Very often that is when trouble happens, when they are waiting for public transport.
The panel has also worked hard to set up the Crime Stoppers initiative, the confidential telephone line which has been successful in Norwich and also in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). The scheme has been funded not


from public resources but from resources raised by a charity and from local sources. That is the way in which we should like to see it continue to develop.
Something which has also concerned people in Norwich, as in other parts of the country, is burglary. My hon. Friend quoted burglary statistics. Last year, Norfolk police, with the co-operation of local authority departments and other agencies, organised an anti-burglary campaign throughout Norwich and the county. What happened? There were different laudable initiatives. Property-marking kits were made available in libraries in the county. Housing departments issued leaflets on door security to sheltered homes. The social services department also arranged for home care assistants to distribute them. The planning department issued good advice to would-be developers about how to make their property more secure. Finally, the Association of British Insurers lent a hand by distributing large numbers of leaflets on home security, free of charge, I believe. It is always good to get such help from business. Those are good examples of co-operation between the public and private sectors.
Before I turn to the more difficult area of the bad news, one final bit of good news about Norwich relates to crime prevention week in April. I should like to report what will happen in the Norwich area so that my hon. Friend can make his constituents better aware. Norwich will be playing a full part in crime prevention week—the first ever in this country. Up and down the land, in places as far apart as Dawlish in the south—west to Derby in the east midlands, people will be playing an active part in promoting crime prevention week. In common with the rest of the country, car crime is a major concern in Norwich. In the six weeks leading up to crime prevention week, a car alarm discount scheme, involving many local companies, has been arranged. I advise people who can afford it and who wish to have that equipment fitted to their cars to do so. I know that this has always been of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest.
In conjunction with the probation service and young offenders on community service, the police in Norwich have also arranged a cycle coding scheme in local schools. In other words, local offenders on community service will go out to schools where the fact that they are offenders will be known and where they will code the bicycles. They will have to do that work themselves. They will be undertaking preventive work while undergoing punishment in the community. That is an important way of driving home to them the fact that they have offended, of making them face up to the consequences of their offending behaviour, and of doing some good in the community. That is the right way to proceed.
The Wednesday of crime prevention week will be a training day for shop staff on the subject of shop theft and credit card fraud, which is a major problem. Friday will be a "stay safe" day concentrating on homewatch schemes and road and home safety in Norwich. Once the Home Office began to look, we found an enormous amount going on in Norwich, which is commendable, and certainly much more than in many other areas.
I doubt whether I shall be able to deal tonight with all my hon. Friend's points about the criminal justice system, but I guess that I shall get the chance to discuss them at greater length when he and his friends and colleagues from Norwich and the Norfolk area come to see me in the Home Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North referred to sentencing, in which the Government's role is to provide an adequate framework of powers within which the courts may act. My hon. Friend is probably aware of the fundamental and significant changes made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which allow my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to refer to the Court of Appeal sentences that are allegedly over-lenient. If my hon. Friend's constituents say to him, "It is a disgrace; that person should have got more"—that may be right or it may be wrong—he can tell them that we have armed the Attorney-General with the power to go back to the Court of Appeal. He has done so on 25 occasions, on 22 of which the Court of Appeal increased the sentence. That should be of some recompense to those people who have suffered from injury or loss, and is important for public confidence.
There is also the issue of bail. I cannot and must not attempt to comment even in broad categorisations on the particular cases that my hon. Friend raised. Suffice it to say two things: we regard the Bail Act 1976 as finely balanced between making sure that no one who has not been convicted is denied his or her liberty before trial unless that is really necessary. Let us imagine how any of us would feel if we were denied our liberty when innocent and were on remand for a long time. On the other hand, we are also convinced that the Bail Act gets the balance right in the other way, in ensuring that those people who are a danger, or a potential danger, to the community are remanded in custody.
I have heard the sort of complaints made by my hon. Friend about this issue consistently since I went to the Home Office in 1987 and that is why, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, I took the opportunity to suggest to the House, and the House agreed, that we should toughen up some aspects of the working of bail by requiring learned judges who give bail in the face of police advice to the contrary to give their reasons for so doing in open court. That is an important safeguard.
It is also important that we advise ourselves of the full facts of each case. I am not one of those who criticise the media easily, but it is important that the local or national media should report the full facts when someone is bailed. Sometimes, on examination, they are less serious than one might have thought.
Bail decisions are often the most difficult that magistrates and Crown court judges have to take, and I accept that there is a legitimate public concern from time to time when people are granted bail, particularly when serious offences are involved such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. But it is for exactly that reason that the House decided that section 153 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 should stand.
Whether penalties in the community are tough enough is a matter for sentencers, the probation service and those who work with it. It is for them to deliver that tough caring authority that is necessary not just to punish people but to make them face up to the effects of their offending behaviour.
A number of points have been left unanswered by me because of lack of time. I look forward to discussing them further with my hon. Friend when he comes to see me in the Home Office. I congratulate him warmly on initiating this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.